Re: [WISPA] monitoring product (was Re: Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released)
I dont' graph temp/humidity at my towers. I do graph it for my detatched garage and datacenter though. (The most important locations) I have a little atom PC running centos, 1-wire temp/humidity sensor from www.hobby-boards.com, owfs, mrtg, apache. It also has rsync and a 2tb drive for offsite backup of my photos. It is connected with fiber to my home for the offsite backup access. http://www.f64.nu/garage/temp_2.html http://www.f64.nu/garage/temp_3.html On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:50:45PM -0700, Ryan Spott wrote: Must be nice to be so close to a NOAA weather station.. and to have consistant weather from one mile-post to the next. I can tell you that out here, 200' elevation 4500' elevation 4 miles away. :) And I do graph all of that. :) ryan On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: We do this now. From NOAA weather stations. All our backhaul links are polled every 60 seconds for just about everything they spit out (i.e. bits in/out, signals, errors, temperature, etc.) as well as NOAA weather info (temp, humidity, pressure, etc.) for the nearest station. It's all available on a graph to us through extranet. Works very well. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com wrote: This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would make all this data available via some reasonable API; possibly SNMP. Then a monitoring system to collect this data and graph it historically. This would allow the operator to have a much better view of the environment for which their network is operating in. -Matt On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I am not a huge UBNT fan but I might be persuaded to buy one of these for each tower to setup as a remote Spectrum Analyzer for each tower location. How much do these radios run and who sells them on here? Scriv 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ */ 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] monitoring product (was Re: Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released)
I'm pretty sure that Matt was talking about *RF spectrum* weather information here. I've thought about this a few times too- would be an extremely useful product. Even more useful if it had enough intelligence to learn the TDD patterns of the owner's equipment, and listen during the guard intervals so that it showed spectrum conditions with the owner's equipment removed. Being able to see real-time spectrum conditions on an operating link is one of the most useful features on the Orthogon PTP radios, IMO. Patrick Shoemaker Vector Data Systems LLC shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com office: (301) 358-1690 x36 http://www.vectordatasystems.com jp wrote: I dont' graph temp/humidity at my towers. I do graph it for my detatched garage and datacenter though. (The most important locations) I have a little atom PC running centos, 1-wire temp/humidity sensor from www.hobby-boards.com, owfs, mrtg, apache. It also has rsync and a 2tb drive for offsite backup of my photos. It is connected with fiber to my home for the offsite backup access. http://www.f64.nu/garage/temp_2.html http://www.f64.nu/garage/temp_3.html On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:50:45PM -0700, Ryan Spott wrote: Must be nice to be so close to a NOAA weather station.. and to have consistant weather from one mile-post to the next. I can tell you that out here, 200' elevation 4500' elevation 4 miles away. :) And I do graph all of that. :) ryan On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Jayson Baker jay...@spectrasurf.com wrote: We do this now. From NOAA weather stations. All our backhaul links are polled every 60 seconds for just about everything they spit out (i.e. bits in/out, signals, errors, temperature, etc.) as well as NOAA weather info (temp, humidity, pressure, etc.) for the nearest station. It's all available on a graph to us through extranet. Works very well. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Matt Liotta mlio...@r337.com wrote: This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would make all this data available via some reasonable API; possibly SNMP. Then a monitoring system to collect this data and graph it historically. This would allow the operator to have a much better view of the environment for which their network is operating in. -Matt On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I am not a huge UBNT fan but I might be persuaded to buy one of these for each tower to setup as a remote Spectrum Analyzer for each tower location. How much do these radios run and who sells them on here? Scriv 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] ubnt bridging
Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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] connected nation mapping data
BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real legal opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a racket for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort at the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP mapping grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the federal initatives. Basically DOUBLE spending, to get the FREE money. Or maybe I should say different applicants would be beneficiaries of the mapping funds. The mapping group in our state was given to a legit group that was formed by the state and gained many members of wireline and fiber carriers. They reached out to me with intent to try to amicably work with us, but they were surprised by some of the comments that I made prior. For example, they brought up the benefit of lead generation if I filed. I stated... If they were going to post my coverage and contact info for the world to see, I wouldn't file because I dont want everyone from all over the place calling me for service, because it would clog our sales lines with unqualified or less dersirable leads, and that we make sales by precisely targeting our prospects, and the areas and clients that are most profitable for us to serve get targeted, since we have limited funding? I mentioned we had coverage to serve several million subscribers, but we only had funding to install 20 per month. They wanted subscriber level detail, I told them I might give them Block level detail. But the funny part was that the same group just applied for a BTOP grant in round2 to provide fiber to most of the state. So I told them I'd give them my mapping data as soon as they gave me theirs. I told them the round1 applciation, proposed to overbuild our entire coverage, and I'm sure the round2 one would also. I told them there was a huge conflict of interest with me providinh them my coverage data without them providing me theirs. I'd likely have to protest their governor led Round2 BTOP application, and to provide my coverage data prior to the announcement of success or failure of an award, would be a huge comflict of interest, considering I plan to protest the BTOP application. I asked them, If I disclosed my coverage, would they be willing to carve that coverage out of their application... They bypassed that question. They said the Governor's office will be provided a list of providers that complied and didn't. I asked, if they'd join my lobby effort to fight the Governor's office to stop charging property tax on broadband investment? They bypassed that question. Actually There were three big Round1 apps in Maryland. One was State led, and got turned down for many reasons, mostly because it was focusing on overbuilding served areas. ($100 million in Fiber). The second was Maryland Broadband Cooperative that legitimately was focussing on rural unserved parts of the state. Neither got an award for good reasons. In Round2, the Governor changed the plan, and actually incorporated the MVC as a subcomponent of teh State's grant, so that it would add credability to the application. Basically it was a political move that indirectly said we now have one unified application, and to get the rural parts served (MBC) you got to also look the otherway when we through in some served areas that that state wants. They are absolutely crazy if they think I 'll provide my data before the BTOP Round2 protests and awards are finished. However, after that time period, we are very likely to provide full Census Block coverage information to MBC. We want to be looked at as a ISP that shares a possisitive vision for growth of broadband in the state, but we will not give them everything they want in the form they want. We will withhold things, such as we will NOT give any subscriber data, location or count. We will simply disclose coverage. Our position is to convey the facts that we can cover vast territory with in palce infrastructure, and Funding is the primary limitation to expansion. But it will never help us to disclose the volume of our
Re: [WISPA] monitoring product (was Re: Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released)
The RouterOS v4 with the R52n has a spectrum analyzer mode (similar to Orthogon and others). With one of those on your tower either with an omni or a directional antenna and rotor, or both, you could do some pretty interesting things. If MT has the ability to read the analyzer output with their API, you could pretty easily graph the noise on every channel over time. Hmmm. Now that I've said that out loud, I think I'm going to build one. -Kristian On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 10:07 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote: This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would make all this data available via some reasonable API; possibly SNMP. Then a monitoring system to collect this data and graph it historically. This would allow the operator to have a much better view of the environment for which their network is operating in. -Matt On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I am not a huge UBNT fan but I might be persuaded to buy one of these for each tower to setup as a remote Spectrum Analyzer for each tower location. How much do these radios run and who sells them on here? Scriv 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] monitoring product (was Re: Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released)
Document it well =) Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Kristian Hoffmann kh...@fire2wire.comwrote: The RouterOS v4 with the R52n has a spectrum analyzer mode (similar to Orthogon and others). With one of those on your tower either with an omni or a directional antenna and rotor, or both, you could do some pretty interesting things. If MT has the ability to read the analyzer output with their API, you could pretty easily graph the noise on every channel over time. Hmmm. Now that I've said that out loud, I think I'm going to build one. -Kristian On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 10:07 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote: This makes me think about a cool product someone needs to produce. Some sort of device that could be deployed at a wireless colocation site that would simply listen on a variety of bands and collect weather information. The device would make all this data available via some reasonable API; possibly SNMP. Then a monitoring system to collect this data and graph it historically. This would allow the operator to have a much better view of the environment for which their network is operating in. -Matt On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Scrivner wrote: I am not a huge UBNT fan but I might be persuaded to buy one of these for each tower to setup as a remote Spectrum Analyzer for each tower location. How much do these radios run and who sells them on here? Scriv 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] Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released
I have not played with the M series yet. Will the 5.8 units analyze 2.4 as well? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:21 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released UBNT Beta 5.2.4 was released yesterday. (Stop the eye rolling.! J ) I'm cautious with the Betas so I'm trying the new UBNT AirOS Beta firmware on a couple of unused AP radios out in the field. The Beta has the AirView Spectrum Analyzer in it now. Works darned good, looks just like the software for the little AirView devices we use. This one lets me set the channel scan from 4900 to 6400, gives you the ability to control whatever range you want to monitor. Nice and smooth. Downfall is that if you do a spectral scan it takes the radio out of whatever mode you have and it drops the use of the antenna for anything other than the analyzer. Expected and understandable, however. No problem with that. It now has the ability to set Static Routes. It's about time! I will be playing with that little feature, off network of course, for the next couple of days. And I can now manually set the time zone and date. I would have thought that to be a no brainer from the get go but it's finally included. Still waiting for VPN functions. I can always dream. Anyone trying it? Let me know if you find any issues, I'm waiting for a bit to see what shakes out before I jump in 100%. Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020 Logo5 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] Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released
No, and the 2.4GHz cannot and will not analyze 5.8GHz On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote: I have not played with the M series yet. Will the 5.8 units analyze 2.4 as well? Steve Barnes RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 8:21 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Beta 5.2.4 Released UBNT Beta 5.2.4 was released yesterday. (Stop the eye rolling.! J ) I'm cautious with the Betas so I'm trying the new UBNT AirOS Beta firmware on a couple of unused AP radios out in the field. The Beta has the AirView Spectrum Analyzer in it now. Works darned good, looks just like the software for the little AirView devices we use. This one lets me set the channel scan from 4900 to 6400, gives you the ability to control whatever range you want to monitor. Nice and smooth. Downfall is that if you do a spectral scan it takes the radio out of whatever mode you have and it drops the use of the antenna for anything other than the analyzer. Expected and understandable, however. No problem with that. It now has the ability to set Static Routes. It's about time! I will be playing with that little feature, off network of course, for the next couple of days. And I can now manually set the time zone and date. I would have thought that to be a no brainer from the get go but it's finally included. Still waiting for VPN functions. I can always dream. Anyone trying it? Let me know if you find any issues, I'm waiting for a bit to see what shakes out before I jump in 100%. Robert West Just Micro Digital Services Inc. 740-335-7020 Logo5 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] connected nation mapping data
I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real legal opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a racket for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort at the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP mapping grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the federal initatives. Basically DOUBLE spending, to get the FREE money. Or maybe I should say different applicants would be beneficiaries of the mapping funds. The mapping group in our state was given to a legit group that was formed by the state and gained many members of wireline and fiber carriers. They reached out to me with intent to try to amicably work with us, but they were surprised by some of the comments that I made prior. For example, they brought up the benefit of lead generation if I filed. I stated... If they were going to post my coverage and contact info for the world to see, I wouldn't file because I dont want everyone from all over the place calling me for service, because it would clog our sales lines with unqualified or less
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
It would be good to see some type of documentation that the data contractors and the PSC are telling the truth about the NTIA mandating that they collect such detailed data. Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key "anchor institutions" that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real legal opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a racket for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort at the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP mapping grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the federal initatives. Basically DOUBLE spending, to get the FREE money. Or maybe I should say different applicants would be beneficiaries of the mapping funds. The mapping group in our state was given to a legit group that was formed by the state and gained many members of wireline and fiber carriers. They reached out to me with intent to try to amicably work with us, but they were surprised by some of the comments that I made prior. For example, they brought up the benefit of lead generation if I filed. I stated... "If they were going to post my coverage and
Re: [WISPA] ubnt bridging
If a UBNT radio is used solely as an AP (not bridged to another unit) would turning WDS on or off have any effect on the handling of data? Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Cameron Kilton wrote: Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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] connected nation mapping data
I agree. Can someone point to where the NTIA has published the requirements? Jack Unger wrote: It would be good to see some type of documentation that the data contractors and the PSC are telling the truth about the NTIA mandating that they collect such detailed data. Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real legal opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a racket for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort at the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP mapping grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the federal initatives. Basically DOUBLE spending, to get the FREE money. Or maybe I should say different applicants would be beneficiaries of the mapping funds. The mapping group in our state was given to a legit group that was formed by the state and gained many members of wireline and fiber carriers. They reached out to me with intent to try to amicably work with us, but they were surprised by some of
Re: [WISPA] ubnt bridging
Depends if the station/CPE was using WDS. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: If a UBNT radio is used solely as an AP (not bridged to another unit) would turning WDS on or off have any effect on the handling of data? Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Cameron Kilton wrote: Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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/ 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] connected nation mapping data
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:51:34AM -0600, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system The people doing mapping for Maine have asked for these things as well. I have provided #2 as a google earth file, and a subset of #1. I have ignored #3 for a couple reasons. Anchor institutions was fairly undefined first of all. After further explanation, I knew mostly what they meant. The government doesn't know what the anchor institutions are and how they are served. That's their problem for not knowing what the libraries, PDs, FDs, (all government related organizations) etc.. have for Internet. If you ask the town, county, whatever governemnt org the anchor institution is part of, it's public FOI knowledge. If you ask my business, it's customer information. Those institutions are customers to me. They want the names of those customers, and I'm not giving out customer names. Soapbox opinion: I think someone up high is thinking we should be proud and boasting about the anchor institutions we serve and gladly share them. I'm sure they want the list of anchor institutions so someone in government with a few billion to spend can take those customers away with some pork project. I'm not talking a government funded ARRA project. I'm talking a 100% government run pork project, cutting out small business and costing 10x as much to operate, solving a problem that doesn't really exist. Done under the guise of homeland security or education, it would be unstoppable. I should shut up before someone gets a good idea. I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is
Re: [WISPA] ubnt bridging
If the only clients are laptops (no WDS) to a Bullet or NS2 would WDS being on offer anything? Thanks! Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: Depends if the station/CPE was using WDS. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: If a UBNT radio is used solely as an AP (not bridged to another unit) would turning WDS on or off have any effect on the handling of data? Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Cameron Kilton wrote: Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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/ 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
Re: [WISPA] ubnt bridging
Usually adds trouble in that case. I have had good luck NATing at the bullet/NS2 devices. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: If the only clients are laptops (no WDS) to a Bullet or NS2 would WDS being on offer anything? Thanks! Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: Depends if the station/CPE was using WDS. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: If a UBNT radio is used solely as an AP (not bridged to another unit) would turning WDS on or off have any effect on the handling of data? Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Cameron Kilton wrote: Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
I don't normally respond to myself, but this is too good. First site I found after Google on NTIA Mapping says: /Nationwide Field-Survey is Required to Assure Accuracy of Coverage Data --Provider Data is not Accurate --FCC Data is at Census Tract Level --State Mapping Programs Data is Not at Street-Level .Consumer-Supplied Data Points Added in Some Cases/ While this is from a presentation to the NTIA, it does raise some interesting things about what the NTIA should be doing. From a press release from NTIA: /Awardees will collect and verify the availability, speed, and location of broadband across the state. This activity is to be conducted on a semi-annual basis between 2009 and 2011, with the data to be presented in a clear and accessible format to the public, government, and the research community. ... The national broadband map will publicly display the geographic areas where broadband service is available; the technology used to provide the service; the speeds of the service; and broadband service availability at public schools, libraries, hospitals, colleges, universities, and public buildings. The national map will also be searchable by address and show the broadband providers offering service in the corresponding census block or street segment. / I don't see all of the requested data in that list. Looks like areas could be Census Tacts or Blocks, technology is wireless, speeds are whatever we deliver and were we have anchor institutions. Maybe someone can find a real list, but I don't think Connected_ needs anywhere close to what they are asking for to meet the NTIA request. Scott Reed wrote: I agree. Can someone point to where the NTIA has published the requirements? Jack Unger wrote: It would be good to see some type of documentation that the data contractors and the PSC are telling the truth about the NTIA mandating that they collect such detailed data. Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information Thats the funny part. They have an NDA!. What good is the NDA, if you are agreeing to give them information that is intended and will be released to the public on a public web site? What else is there to keep confidential? Maybe only the agregate lists to make it quicker to import into a dta base. Its funny, I asked, what is going to be released to the public? They could not tell me that for sure as the system was still in development and design. So its not even possible to enter into an agreement clearly stating what we'd be agreeing to, because the agreement is not defined. Basically the way it is now is... They say... Provide us everything now, and we'll let you know. In my state there was no pre-planning process or open discussion on the requirements. What happened was that mapping providers got grants, and mapping providers started working. There was no stipulation in the grant program to require winner to accommodate ISP's interests or stakeholder's interests. There job was to create the most accurate and detailed map that they could. NEver a single discussion on how it would be best to display WISP type data. Its a Joke. I personally think we should all not cooperate simply to send the message that we will not get bullied into just compliance, without even being given the opportunity to be part of the planning process. They have no authority to just demand info from us. If they want to map the state, I'll be glad to go to a public work group and discuss it and come up with ideas. But this one sided, this is the way it going to work attitude is not going to fly. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM,
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
Matt and anyone else who talks to the state level mapping organizations: The next time you talk to these people you might ask them to provide you with the names, resumes, and qualifications of the staff that would be running your coverage maps if you were to provide all of the tower data they are requesting. Also ask for a list of similar projects these people have worked on in the recent past to justify their skill in creating an accurate coverage map. IF they actually produce that data (and I doubt they will) I would ask them how it is they feel these people are qualified to conduct this level of work. From what I have seen at various state levels, they do not have anyone with RF Engineering experience on staff, let alone anyone with experience in the unlicensed bands so that they can produce maps that show reality of what works vice equipment manufacturer specs. Connected Nation is putting someone in charge of mapping WISP's using Radio Mobile. While that is not a bad thing (you all know I think Radio Mobile works great) these people don't seem to have much if any RF Engineering Experience. If they do it seems to be in the cellular world and I can tell you from experience, that those types can be all over the place with their ability. There are experts who think they know what they are doing because they can run some software, and then there are the ones who know the RF theory in the first place and can really understand what the tool is showing when they run a map, especially as it relates to knowing what to use for settings within the program. Too many people just play with the settings until it looks right. What I am seeing in this mapping grant process is a bunch of GIS/Mapping Companies that now think they are also RF Engineering Companies, many times because they hire someone who can make a map in Radio Mobile and they think that is good enough. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
I believe the folks doing the mapping (at least a significant part of it) for Connected Nation are Chip Spann, Layne Wagner and John Determan. All three of these men have significant RF and WISP background. Not sure if they are actually engineers' but probablly 30-40 years combined wireless (licensed and unlicensed) between them. I'm not sure who is doing the mapping in your state, but I believe these three are overseeing the mapping for all of Connected Nations's contracts. Kind Regards, David Hannum New Era Broadband, LLC On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Matt and anyone else who talks to the state level mapping organizations: The next time you talk to these people you might ask them to provide you with the names, resumes, and qualifications of the staff that would be running your coverage maps if you were to provide all of the tower data they are requesting. Also ask for a list of similar projects these people have worked on in the recent past to justify their skill in creating an accurate coverage map. IF they actually produce that data (and I doubt they will) I would ask them how it is they feel these people are qualified to conduct this level of work. From what I have seen at various state levels, they do not have anyone with RF Engineering experience on staff, let alone anyone with experience in the unlicensed bands so that they can produce maps that show reality of what works vice equipment manufacturer specs. Connected Nation is putting someone in charge of mapping WISP's using Radio Mobile. While that is not a bad thing (you all know I think Radio Mobile works great) these people don't seem to have much if any RF Engineering Experience. If they do it seems to be in the cellular world and I can tell you from experience, that those types can be all over the place with their ability. There are experts who think they know what they are doing because they can run some software, and then there are the ones who know the RF theory in the first place and can really understand what the tool is showing when they run a map, especially as it relates to knowing what to use for settings within the program. Too many people just play with the settings until it looks right. What I am seeing in this mapping grant process is a bunch of GIS/Mapping Companies that now think they are also RF Engineering Companies, many times because they hire someone who can make a map in Radio Mobile and they think that is good enough. Thank You, Brian Webster 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] connected nation mapping data
Well that is a little more comforting. They don't need to be Engineers because there is no formal degree for wireless engineers in the US. Electrical Engineers only get about two weeks antenna theory when it comes to wireless. If these three are really on staff, they are not doing a very good job of oversight for the staff running the maps. I have seen results in both Illinois and Michigan and can tell you their predictions are way off. Thank You, Brian Webster From: David Hannum [mailto:oujas...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 3:23 PM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I believe the folks doing the mapping (at least a significant part of it) for Connected Nation are Chip Spann, Layne Wagner and John Determan. All three of these men have significant RF and WISP background. Not sure if they are actually engineers' but probablly 30-40 years combined wireless (licensed and unlicensed) between them. I'm not sure who is doing the mapping in your state, but I believe these three are overseeing the mapping for all of Connected Nations's contracts. Kind Regards, David Hannum New Era Broadband, LLC On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Brian Webster bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote: Matt and anyone else who talks to the state level mapping organizations: The next time you talk to these people you might ask them to provide you with the names, resumes, and qualifications of the staff that would be running your coverage maps if you were to provide all of the tower data they are requesting. Also ask for a list of similar projects these people have worked on in the recent past to justify their skill in creating an accurate coverage map. IF they actually produce that data (and I doubt they will) I would ask them how it is they feel these people are qualified to conduct this level of work. From what I have seen at various state levels, they do not have anyone with RF Engineering experience on staff, let alone anyone with experience in the unlicensed bands so that they can produce maps that show reality of what works vice equipment manufacturer specs. Connected Nation is putting someone in charge of mapping WISP's using Radio Mobile. While that is not a bad thing (you all know I think Radio Mobile works great) these people don't seem to have much if any RF Engineering Experience. If they do it seems to be in the cellular world and I can tell you from experience, that those types can be all over the place with their ability. There are experts who think they know what they are doing because they can run some software, and then there are the ones who know the RF theory in the first place and can really understand what the tool is showing when they run a map, especially as it relates to knowing what to use for settings within the program. Too many people just play with the settings until it looks right. What I am seeing in this mapping grant process is a bunch of GIS/Mapping Companies that now think they are also RF Engineering Companies, many times because they hire someone who can make a map in Radio Mobile and they think that is good enough. Thank You, Brian Webster 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] connected nation mapping data
I thought I'd add Why should we assume that the State's objectives will always be to get accurate coverage maps? Sure States with higher percentage of unserved areas would benefit from accurately showing userved areas. But what about the other more served states? Wouldn't they benefit by showing that their own states are more unserved than the realy are? Showing that a WISP covers an unserved area just means that that state might not qualify for Federal money to get fiber to those locations. Can we ever really rely on any mapping project to represent the WISP's interests, when the goal of the MApping is to develop a basis for possible future federal assistance to build fiber networks? Isn't most state's real mission to determine where there is and isn't fiber, to encourage the expansion of Fiber? What motive does the State appointed mappers have to cooperate and accommodate WISP's request for mapping? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
NOFA for this grant can be found here: http://broadbandusa.gov/info_lib.htm This covers the data they are looking for. Chris Cooper Intelliwave -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 2:22 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I agree. Can someone point to where the NTIA has published the requirements? Jack Unger wrote: It would be good to see some type of documentation that the data contractors and the PSC are telling the truth about the NTIA mandating that they collect such detailed data. Matt Larsen - Lists wrote: I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information.The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When a WISP does not provide info, whether the Feds or States make a stink about it, may depend on the impact of the data that would be missing, and their real legal opinion which I'm sure they would not truly disclose outside of court. In MD, we were just contacted, and the mapping initiative is really a racket for free money. MD had already started a very substanial mapping effort at the State Level. But that is considered different. So with teh BTOP mapping grant they got, they cant or choose not to use the pre-existing MApping platform, and basically are starting a seperate project to comply to the federal initatives. Basically
Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste
You know that only the most motivated and intelligent people head for government service jobs - Right? --Original Mail-- From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com To: spie...@avolve.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:23:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste I look at it like this Remember the dot-coms... when these idiots run their businesses into the ground, there will be lots of good equipment to snap up at 5 cents on the dollar. marco On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote: Tell me about it. -- Original Message -- From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:49:39 -0400 Yeah...one of the colleges in our state is trying for stimulus money in round 2 to wire-up the entire state, then specifically mentions a town in which we already have service in as being one of the first locations that would be wired from the stimulas! What the @#$% is a college doing getting into the ISP business and why are they @#$% trying to put local ISP's out of business?!?!?! I might as just well move my business to China...competition is probably fairer there! November can't come soon enough! Marlon K. Schafer wrote: We protested a project out here. A fiber build with wireless overlay. There is already fiber, DSL AND wireless. The project was funded anyway. It's not about the consumer folks And it's CERTAINLY NOT about using OUR money efficiently. marlon - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste I filed 32 protests during the first round of the stimulus plan, and none of them were funded. Protest long and protest often. From what I have seen so far, most of the frivolous projects have been rejected handily. Don't get all worked up about the waste until it finally comes to pass. It was pretty clear from looking at the first round apps that there were a lot of stupid, wasteful applications. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/7/2010 7:29 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Insert explicatives here Thats 26 Y E A R S of my higher end tier of service, per customer. Why the #3!! do things not get BID out? Who can do X users for the lowest $ I mean come on, that is just horrible. It doesnt even factor in what those new users will be paying for the service. I need to find out if they have applies for my area, I manage client networks with qwest dsl and they have been giving some BS about upgrading modems (for a /mo fee) when all the sites have adsl2+ modems. Not good On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Travis Johnsont...@ida.net wrote: Hi, So, as I said since the Broadband Stimulus act was passed, the money will be wasted. Qwest just applied for $467 MILLION dollars to upgrade their DSL infrastructure in my coverage areas. They want to expand and upgrade the slower 7meg connections to go up to 12 to 40 megabytes per second. The article says they will increase coverage to 29,922 new customers. That's an average cost of $15,607 PER CUSTOMER. Many of the areas they list (Idaho Falls, Rexburg, Ammon, Blackfoot, Rigby, Shelley, etc.) already have at least 3 providers and some have 4 or 5 provider choices. Let the waste begin :( Travis Microserv 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:
Re: [WISPA] ubnt bridging
Sicne the AP's are WRAPs and dont do WDS (that I know of) I ended up swapping out the WRAP with a BM2. Works great now! On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Cameron Kilton c...@midcoast.com wrote: Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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] ubnt bridging
It wasnt. On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Depends if the station/CPE was using WDS. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” --- Winston Churchill On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote: If a UBNT radio is used solely as an AP (not bridged to another unit) would turning WDS on or off have any effect on the handling of data? Greg On Apr 12, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Cameron Kilton wrote: Are the Access point and the Station set to WDS. Ubnt recommends this for the units to be a full transparent bridge. We had a similar issue and this fixed it for us. -Cameron Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 On 4/1/2010 11:47 PM, RickG wrote: I had a similar situation recently that I never figured out. WRAP/StarOS on a tower and for some reason the CM9 radio card would no longer connect to the source for backhaul. So, I added a BM5 in bridge mode to the ethernet port. All the clients on the StarOS/WRAP worked great but I could no longer see them from the core side of the network. I tried everything before giving up and putting a BM2 on the top of the tower. Working really well now but I'd love to know why it didnt work. -RickG On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Data Technologyw...@dtisp.com wrote: I have an M5 bullet in station bridge mode. This is connected on the ethernet side to an MT router. Thru another port on the MT router I am nating an office. The office computers work fine. I am now trying to route a small subnet to another port on the MT router in order to feed a local access point at the office. The bridged bullet does not appear to be passing the subnet traffic. Am I doing something wrong (I know, other than bridging in the first place)? I am using version 5.1.2 of AirOS. Now I normally would just use an MT unit with 2 radio cards and mount at the top of the tower but I had a bullet laying around and wanted to see what it can do. I use UBNT for all my cpe's and use the router function within them. I also have never used UBNT to try to pass a subnet thru. I just thought that with the advances that UBNT is making I would test some of their stuff but I don't want to get away from MT for network control. LaRoy McCann Data Technology 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/ 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:
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
They can pry the info from my cold, dead, brain! On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information Thats the funny part. They have an NDA!. What good is the NDA, if you are agreeing to give them information that is intended and will be released to the public on a public web site? What else is there to keep confidential? Maybe only the agregate lists to make it quicker to import into a dta base. Its funny, I asked, what is going to be released to the public? They could not tell me that for sure as the system was still in development and design. So its not even possible to enter into an agreement clearly stating what we'd be agreeing to, because the agreement is not defined. Basically the way it is now is... They say... Provide us everything now, and we'll let you know. In my state there was no pre-planning process or open discussion on the requirements. What happened was that mapping providers got grants, and mapping providers started working. There was no stipulation in the grant program to require winner to accommodate ISP's interests or stakeholder's interests. There job was to create the most accurate and detailed map that they could. NEver a single discussion on how it would be best to display WISP type data. Its a Joke. I personally think we should all not cooperate simply to send the message that we will not get bullied into just compliance, without even being given the opportunity to be part of the planning process. They have no authority to just demand info from us. If they want to map the state, I'll be glad to go to a public work group and discuss it and come up with ideas. But this one sided, this is the way it going to work attitude is not going to fly. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information. The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive
Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data
Tom, As always you ask great questions. I'd love to see the answer! On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote: I thought I'd add Why should we assume that the State's objectives will always be to get accurate coverage maps? Sure States with higher percentage of unserved areas would benefit from accurately showing userved areas. But what about the other more served states? Wouldn't they benefit by showing that their own states are more unserved than the realy are? Showing that a WISP covers an unserved area just means that that state might not qualify for Federal money to get fiber to those locations. Can we ever really rely on any mapping project to represent the WISP's interests, when the goal of the MApping is to develop a basis for possible future federal assistance to build fiber networks? Isn't most state's real mission to determine where there is and isn't fiber, to encourage the expansion of Fiber? What motive does the State appointed mappers have to cooperate and accommodate WISP's request for mapping? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] connected nation mapping data I was on a conference call with the State of Nebraska broadband mapping contractors and the Public Service Commission this morning and came away with a bad feeling. Based on the Form477 data, and the PSC's broadband provider registration information, there are 283 broadband providers in the state of Nebraska. But they only have complete information for about 25, and signed NDAs from only 160. I offered to them that they would have better luck getting data if they weren't asking for so much information. The data template that they ask for includes: 1) All subscriber addresses, and the type of broadband deployed at that location 2) GPS coordinates for all of our tower locations, the types of antennas provided and the frequencies in use at that location 3) Key anchor institutions that are receiving service from our system I have had a couple of phone calls and several emails back and forth with the mapping subcontractors, and they (and the PSC) are still adamant about the data collection requirements. I thought that we had negotiated to the point that they would accept a shape file and a summary of the number of subscribers per census block, but the phone call this morning confirmed that incomplete data submissions (ones that do not include the tower verification information and subscriber information in the format that they requested) will not be included in the summary data, or the state broadband availability map that will be released to the public. The contractors and the attorney for the PSC gave the indication that the NTIA is mandating this level of data collection, and that their NDA should be enough protection to ensure the safety of our proprietary information. My position, and the position of the majority of WISP operators that I have visited with, is that I am not going to turn over the information that they are asking for. Full disclosure of all my tower sites and the addresses of my customers is an onerous request and fundamentally unnecessary to determine where broadband coverage exists within the state. I would prefer to run the risk of being overbuilt by a government funded program in the future than to turn over information to entities (NTIA in particular) that could be legally obligated to turn over that information through a FOIA request. I don't know whether it is too late to push back at the NTIA to reduce the data that they are requesting. I can sympathise to a certain degree with the PSC and the contractors, as they are just trying to collect the data that NTIA has mandated them to collect. But they are simply asking for too much information. In the end, it will be another inaccurate representation of broadband coverage and that information will be used to develop policy and programs that will make the competitive environment for WISPs and other independent ISPs even more difficult to succeed in. That sucks. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/12/2010 10:29 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: BTOP Mapping grants given to States are Federal initiatives. The states have to answer and report to the Feds on their progress. Basically they will report to the Feds, who they contacted, and who provided info and who didn't. The State mappers have little authority to do anything about whether you give them information or not. But the Feds potentially could. Remember it is FCC policy/law to provide Form 477 data, down to Census track. It may come down to a legal issue on whether the FCC has authority to demand confidential information or not from provate companies. When
Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste
The most motivated to goldbrick and pontificate, that is :) ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- From: Tracy Tippett tracytipp...@swiftwireless.com Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:54 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste You know that only the most motivated and intelligent people head for government service jobs - Right? --Original Mail-- From: Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com To: spie...@avolve.net, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:23:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste I look at it like this Remember the dot-coms... when these idiots run their businesses into the ground, there will be lots of good equipment to snap up at 5 cents on the dollar. marco On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net wrote: Tell me about it. -- Original Message -- From: Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 10:49:39 -0400 Yeah...one of the colleges in our state is trying for stimulus money in round 2 to wire-up the entire state, then specifically mentions a town in which we already have service in as being one of the first locations that would be wired from the stimulas! What the @#$% is a college doing getting into the ISP business and why are they @#$% trying to put local ISP's out of business?!?!?! I might as just well move my business to China...competition is probably fairer there! November can't come soon enough! Marlon K. Schafer wrote: We protested a project out here. A fiber build with wireless overlay. There is already fiber, DSL AND wireless. The project was funded anyway. It's not about the consumer folks And it's CERTAINLY NOT about using OUR money efficiently. marlon - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists li...@manageisp.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Stimulus waste I filed 32 protests during the first round of the stimulus plan, and none of them were funded. Protest long and protest often. From what I have seen so far, most of the frivolous projects have been rejected handily. Don't get all worked up about the waste until it finally comes to pass. It was pretty clear from looking at the first round apps that there were a lot of stupid, wasteful applications. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 4/7/2010 7:29 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote: Insert explicatives here Thats 26 Y E A R S of my higher end tier of service, per customer. Why the #3!! do things not get BID out? Who can do X users for the lowest $ I mean come on, that is just horrible. It doesnt even factor in what those new users will be paying for the service. I need to find out if they have applies for my area, I manage client networks with qwest dsl and they have been giving some BS about upgrading modems (for a /mo fee) when all the sites have adsl2+ modems. Not good On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Travis Johnsont...@ida.net wrote: Hi, So, as I said since the Broadband Stimulus act was passed, the money will be wasted. Qwest just applied for $467 MILLION dollars to upgrade their DSL infrastructure in my coverage areas. They want to expand and upgrade the slower 7meg connections to go up to 12 to 40 megabytes per second. The article says they will increase coverage to 29,922 new customers. That's an average cost of $15,607 PER CUSTOMER. Many of the areas they list (Idaho Falls, Rexburg, Ammon, Blackfoot, Rigby, Shelley, etc.) already have at least 3 providers and some have 4 or 5 provider choices. Let the waste begin :( Travis Microserv 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
[WISPA] Ubiquiti AirOS Comparison
Just for fun AP1000Ubiqiuti KN TurboCellAirOS 1992 2009 Polling MAC Yes Yes Radius MAC Auth Yes No Metal Enclosure Yes No Rugged RF connectorsNo No Modular Wirless Interfaces Yes No Per Client RF Stats Yes No Complete SNMP MIBs Yes No We've come a long way? 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/
