Re: [WISPA] Backend systems

[Scottie Arnett]

I am way behind on this threadBut I can say I ran Windows servers from 
1999 - 2008 for almost everything. I have moved everything to Linux in the 
last 2 years because of the problems I have had with Window's servers. The 
only system I still have running Windows is our billing server, and that is 
only because I have not taken the steps to go to a different billing system. 
I can say that I had at least 2 to 3(most of the time way more) 
notifications of Windows servers hosting web or mail BEING DOWN EVERY MONTH! 
Since I started hosting the websites and mail server on Linux in the last 
two years, I have never had a cell phone alert that anything is down! I have 
became a follower. I was one of those believers that though M$ was the $hit, 
wrong answer! The internet world was created on Unix and every server you 
have on the net should be Unix or a Linux variant!

Scott

- Original Message - 
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Backend systems


I'm sure many share my experience, similarly or identically.

I have several Linux servers (http, monitoring, mysql/php, etc).
Never an issue with any of them.

One Windows server - for ONLY Quickbooks.  I have issues with it at
least once a week.  Updates reboot it and configuration is lost.
Rights to add a printer for the CPA.  Rights for IE's security
permissions.  Disk filled up with 10 gigabytes of Windows junk
(updates I'm guessing).  It's just a mess.

Defend Windows as much as you want, but you can't deny Windows servers
tend to cost more time.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
> Very Well Said Mark Nash. All servers, OS, and software have a learning 
> Curve. I know nothing of Linux. Not because the desire is not there, the 
> time isn't. There are things that I could manage better with a few free 
> apps and Linux servers. But to this point at <700 clients I haven't needed 
> it and I will be looking into that in the future.
>
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Nash
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:04 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Backend systems
>
> Nice Shane... How about a server with no NIC. Now THAT would be a secure 
> server, mostly. But what if a user got to the keyboard? Pull the power 
> supply, now they'll surely not be able to break in... WAIT!
> There's still data on the hard drive! Better erase that...
>
> Dude, this is meant to be in jest, and to make a point. I don't currently 
> run any Windows servers due to the engineer that we had in our office 
> (which we now don't have so we have to rely on outside consultants for 
> Linux expertise). But I ran on them for the first 7 years with our mail 
> server, web server, DNS servers, etc.
>
> Anyway...
>
> Flame on about Windows servers, people, but the small business world runs 
> on them. For those of you who own your WISPs and don't know anything about 
> servers, don't listen to sensational hype. Take a sensible and tactical 
> approach and do what's right for your business.
> Any server is just a tool. Pluses & minuses. You have to do a cost/benefit 
> analysis with a server just as you would which kind of radio to use in the 
> field, or who to hire to answer your phones.
>
> On 12/7/2010 7:47 AM, Shane MacDonald wrote:
>> I get scared when I hear "Windows" and "Software" in the same sentence.
>> Then when you add "Server" I usually run.
>>
>> Shane MacDonald
>> KP Performance Antennas
>>
>>
>> On 7-Dec-10, at 8:11 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote:
>>
>>> We used Rodopi. If you can handle the fact that its Windows and
>>> ASP.NET and MSSQL server, its OK. It works very well and very
>>> configurable. We had it set up on Windows Small Business Server,
>>> that is the version with MSSQL server.
>>>
>>> For what its worth.
>>>
>>> --Curtis
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[RickG]

Well, I have one tower (130' sign post) that is unclimable and because of
its location you cant get a bucket truck to it half the year. Rather than
risk an extended outage due to radios dying at the top, I used LMR-600 with
high powered Bullets at the bottom, no amps. Works surprisingly well!

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> Well I was thinking an amp was involved to compensate...
> On Dec 29, 2010 9:15 PM, "Robert West"  wrote:
> > That's what I thought too especially since he's probably using a 12dbi
> omni
> > or worse.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:05 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Coax up the tower? There has to be some serious loss there.
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert West  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > Old boy is using old Bullet2 with a stick omni. Has the antenna on top of
> > the tower or leg with coax running all the way down to the ground where
> he
> > has the Bullet. No sectors anywhere.
> >
> >
> >
> > New boy is outfitted with a modern and professional setup. 3 UBNT MIMO
> > sectors per AP with Rocket2M. Backhauls are Bullet5M on a 29dbi Pacific
> > Wireless grid. All links are at 10MHz channel width including the
> > backhauls.
> >
> >
> >
> > We've discussed finding a way to turn off one chain of the rockets, I
> really
> > wish UBNT had thought about that from the get go on these, seems to be a
> no
> > brainer, anyhow we talked about that and honestly that would be a good
> idea
> > but from all I've been hearing, I really don't think this is the entire
> > issue old boy is having. With all the phone calls and noise he's been
> > making, I'm thinking a lot of it comes from him just being pissed over
> > having someone in his territory and doing it better than him. I would put
> > money on the idea that even if new boy was able to turn off one chain of
> his
> > rockets, old boy would still complain because he has been blaming new boy
> > for every issue he can think of and word has it that the quality of his
> > network sucked before any of this happened.
> >
> >
> >
> > And again, New Boy planned around the existing RF environment and it
> > shouldn't have been an issue if not for his low power omnis. The other
> side
> > should be able to admit that he needs to upgrade a bit in order to meet
> half
> > way, I think.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:02 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> >
> >
> > Still missing some relevent detail...
> >
> >
> >
> > New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
> >
> > Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
> >
> >
> >
> > As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
> >
> > Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
> >
> >
> >
> > Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
> > could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination
> and
> > cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This might also come down to
> who
> > has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
> > non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their
> contracts,
> > versus hand shake deals.
> >
> >
> >
> > I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
> > design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
> >
> >
> >
> > The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design
> optimally
> > for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new
> > providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time. At
> the
> > end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he
> > needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
> > tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the
> new
> > provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be
> on
> > a smaller scale.
> >
> >
> >
> > Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as
> interference
> > resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
> > accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what
> is
> > ultimately the best practice. Its tough for a company who has built a
> > network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
> > design.
> >
> > Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with
> dual
> > pol? Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obs

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[RickG]

I'll use that line in the introduction for the book!

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

>  I dont have the time either, I'm just lazy. And its easier to write, than
> face the reality that I should really be working :-)
>
> After News years, I'll probably disappear for a while, work is piling up.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Chuck Hogg 
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:19 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
>
> Tom:
>
> I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses you
> do.  I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to read them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>
>>  Robert,
>>
>> Still missing some relevent detail...
>>
>> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
>> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
>>
>> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
>> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
>>
>>  Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
>> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and
>> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest.  This might also come down to
>> who has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
>> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts,
>> versus hand shake deals.
>>
>> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
>> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
>>
>> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design
>> optimally for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for
>> the new providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time.
>> At the end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that
>> he needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
>> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new
>> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on
>> a smaller scale.
>>
>> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference
>> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
>> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is
>> ultimately the best practice.  Its tough for a company who has built a
>> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
>> design.
>> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual
>> pol?  Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction
>> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of
>> interference isolation also helps.   If some else is operating on 20Mhz,
>> a new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the
>> 20Mhz channel.
>>
>> I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on
>> the New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy
>> is using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So,
>> New WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and
>> leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to
>> 20Mhz if you need to to regain the capacity.  Problem solved. But if you
>> rely on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so
>> much easier than channel coordination.  Remember that Polarity isolation
>> often has much better isolation than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM
>> you really need 20db of SNR min, and polarity isolation will get you that.
>> Its hard to get that without polarity isolation.  Bottom line is, if you
>> both choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere with
>> each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is much easier to
>> isolate, when you know everything about your own network, and can make the
>> best choices and trade off for your network. And you can make those changes
>> without answering or coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of
>> relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using
>> sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and New WISP
>> to take Horizontal.
>>
>> Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a
>> major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult,
>> expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in
>> new with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing
>> deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a
>> new provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it
>> even more irresponsbile. Bu

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[RickG]

Thats optimal if you can do it. Many times you have personality conflicts.
I'm second owner here. The previous owner did not get along at all with the
competition. I changed all that and in their demise they gave me first right
of refusals on some of their towers.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Charles N Wyble
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Why don't the two WISPS peer with each other? That seems like a much
> better outcome to me. Coordinate all your gear together, go in together
> on backhaul etc.
>
> Form a strategic partnership.
>
> - --
> Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com)
> Systems craftsman for the stars
> http://www.knownelement.com
> Mobile: 626 539 4344
> Office: 310 929 8793
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNG7b8AAoJEMvvG/TyLEAtDhsP/30tw5lT6t1l0IcBmmm9bs8e
> Qf06WQbo9IgGxGlcWOQyL3au/nQmPYuFV8d3JVp71nkGXjVKRKPrGvdG3dBjfjix
> xrnplevyRZ205ksgYa7dJK1IsUfTTDXVo5Yw/LdrnIG9M0Mn3hSy8QmnCr7H1wZD
> zy5BLXqyf/QyLEy4oD7CN9EXk553rVf6I0ElmLRmYStK9oIhL79b3HrkN9pBxpZ+
> BtEtrEAZzjzcK8bLoY3KmvKqK+V98/oQU73CAXwME/GOpiyFCWv9AX7UZyysMrIZ
> 3z0p9G9PtcvhuCRhiehjFsdRZV+JvznO/gI00fnCHZWRHsHT0yb4W6AyqLsYEgsM
> lBMBw1iCG/UZ24luJamM90h0KfVQ48o8mkI3h4AI1vVN658UNJoVsvX4IUqH8BcN
> 3d1r/w9WKEPOaEVd7F4fR7aCuLipZzIZNsTLoA5DLPAMZFCGYDRC57sydTTqgyL6
> QIzfbhbICnv7a7ko+n0s7MvHaI1D/PNi5ckXxdCef/Nw5de0cv7M1PM9fK9fHomz
> CZhkMJA0qPv0V7yQr6+dIOTZLf19DyHk5uVzQXIITN9bO55XTmGV7ZgYnPCMMtwe
> 2iQ1l/XzywcaKbOoV44rP8yhIRqTol14XKqIgICQuWyQos+m/qTI/lQ26E2g8SQr
> cu0HzLf7IWOhom6UWTha
> =py8H
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[RickG]

I was gonna say the same! I have my own WISP archive from 6 years on this
list and could put together a book using Tom's writings! Thanks Tom!

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

> Tom:
>
> I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses you
> do.  I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to read them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>
>>  Robert,
>>
>> Still missing some relevent detail...
>>
>> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
>> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
>>
>> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
>> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
>>
>>  Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
>> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and
>> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest.  This might also come down to
>> who has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
>> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts,
>> versus hand shake deals.
>>
>> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
>> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
>>
>> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design
>> optimally for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for
>> the new providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time.
>> At the end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that
>> he needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
>> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new
>> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on
>> a smaller scale.
>>
>> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference
>> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
>> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is
>> ultimately the best practice.  Its tough for a company who has built a
>> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
>> design.
>> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual
>> pol?  Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction
>> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of
>> interference isolation also helps.   If some else is operating on 20Mhz,
>> a new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the
>> 20Mhz channel.
>>
>> I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on
>> the New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy
>> is using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So,
>> New WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and
>> leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to
>> 20Mhz if you need to to regain the capacity.  Problem solved. But if you
>> rely on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so
>> much easier than channel coordination.  Remember that Polarity isolation
>> often has much better isolation than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM
>> you really need 20db of SNR min, and polarity isolation will get you that.
>> Its hard to get that without polarity isolation.  Bottom line is, if you
>> both choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere with
>> each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is much easier to
>> isolate, when you know everything about your own network, and can make the
>> best choices and trade off for your network. And you can make those changes
>> without answering or coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of
>> relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using
>> sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and New WISP
>> to take Horizontal.
>>
>> Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a
>> major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult,
>> expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear.
>>
>> I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in
>> new with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing
>> deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a
>> new provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it
>> even more irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's
>> day and age to adeqautely co-exist.
>>
>> To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs
>> to the new installer during installation. An installtion should not
>> continue, if its known to cause interference. This is the reason its so
>> important for Freq Spectrum Analyzers to be built-in to all APs. Thats the

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

Dunno.  Could be.  I have this vision  in my head of a Linksys router
flashed with DD-WRT taking that setup down as well..

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Well I was thinking an amp was involved to compensate...

On Dec 29, 2010 9:15 PM, "Robert West"  wrote:
> That's what I thought too especially since he's probably using a 12dbi
omni
> or worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:05 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Coax up the tower? There has to be some serious loss there.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert West 
> wrote:
> 
> Old boy is using old Bullet2 with a stick omni. Has the antenna on top of
> the tower or leg with coax running all the way down to the ground where he
> has the Bullet. No sectors anywhere. 
> 
> 
> 
> New boy is outfitted with a modern and professional setup. 3 UBNT MIMO
> sectors per AP with Rocket2M. Backhauls are Bullet5M on a 29dbi Pacific
> Wireless grid. All links are at 10MHz channel width including the
> backhauls. 
> 
> 
> 
> We've discussed finding a way to turn off one chain of the rockets, I
really
> wish UBNT had thought about that from the get go on these, seems to be a
no
> brainer, anyhow we talked about that and honestly that would be a good
idea
> but from all I've been hearing, I really don't think this is the entire
> issue old boy is having. With all the phone calls and noise he's been
> making, I'm thinking a lot of it comes from him just being pissed over
> having someone in his territory and doing it better than him. I would put
> money on the idea that even if new boy was able to turn off one chain of
his
> rockets, old boy would still complain because he has been blaming new boy
> for every issue he can think of and word has it that the quality of his
> network sucked before any of this happened. 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, New Boy planned around the existing RF environment and it
> shouldn't have been an issue if not for his low power omnis. The other
side
> should be able to admit that he needs to upgrade a bit in order to meet
half
> way, I think. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:02 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
> 
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> 
> 
> Still missing some relevent detail...
> 
> 
> 
> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
> 
> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
> 
> 
> 
> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
> 
> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
> 
> 
> 
> Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination
and
> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This might also come down to
who
> has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their
contracts,
> versus hand shake deals. 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design
optimally
> for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new
> providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time. At the
> end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he
> needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new
> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be
on
> a smaller scale.
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference
> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what
is
> ultimately the best practice. Its tough for a company who has built a
> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
> design.
> 
> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual
> pol? Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction
> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of
> interference isolation also helps. If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a
> new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the
20Mhz
>

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Josh Luthman]

Well I was thinking an amp was involved to compensate...
On Dec 29, 2010 9:15 PM, "Robert West"  wrote:
> That's what I thought too especially since he's probably using a 12dbi
omni
> or worse.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 9:05 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
>
>
>
> Coax up the tower? There has to be some serious loss there.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert West 
> wrote:
>
> Old boy is using old Bullet2 with a stick omni. Has the antenna on top of
> the tower or leg with coax running all the way down to the ground where he
> has the Bullet. No sectors anywhere.
>
>
>
> New boy is outfitted with a modern and professional setup. 3 UBNT MIMO
> sectors per AP with Rocket2M. Backhauls are Bullet5M on a 29dbi Pacific
> Wireless grid. All links are at 10MHz channel width including the
> backhauls.
>
>
>
> We've discussed finding a way to turn off one chain of the rockets, I
really
> wish UBNT had thought about that from the get go on these, seems to be a
no
> brainer, anyhow we talked about that and honestly that would be a good
idea
> but from all I've been hearing, I really don't think this is the entire
> issue old boy is having. With all the phone calls and noise he's been
> making, I'm thinking a lot of it comes from him just being pissed over
> having someone in his territory and doing it better than him. I would put
> money on the idea that even if new boy was able to turn off one chain of
his
> rockets, old boy would still complain because he has been blaming new boy
> for every issue he can think of and word has it that the quality of his
> network sucked before any of this happened.
>
>
>
> And again, New Boy planned around the existing RF environment and it
> shouldn't have been an issue if not for his low power omnis. The other
side
> should be able to admit that he needs to upgrade a bit in order to meet
half
> way, I think.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:02 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
>
>
> Still missing some relevent detail...
>
>
>
> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
>
> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
>
>
>
> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
>
> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
>
>
>
> Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination
and
> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This might also come down to
who
> has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their
contracts,
> versus hand shake deals.
>
>
>
> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
>
>
>
> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design
optimally
> for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new
> providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time. At the
> end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he
> needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new
> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be
on
> a smaller scale.
>
>
>
> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference
> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what
is
> ultimately the best practice. Its tough for a company who has built a
> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
> design.
>
> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual
> pol? Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction
> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of
> interference isolation also helps. If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a
> new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the
20Mhz
> channel.
>
>
>
> I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on
the
> New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy
is
> using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, New
> WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and
> leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to
> 20Mhz if you need 

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

Yeah, I had that once a few years ago.  Took one letter from my lawyer and
it put an end to that.

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Justin Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

   I know of a similar story.  Only twist is old boy is telling their
customers it's all due to new boy.  Can you say slander?
-- 
Justin Wilson  
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support




  _  

From: Robert West 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:24:54 -0500
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Actually he did do a scan and in a normal situation  there would be plenty
of room for both however old boy insists on a stick omni as an AP which
tells me that he was marginal at best even without new boy.  New boy tried
to convince old boy to try going to sectors and upgrading things but he's
set in his ways.
 
If the noise was intolerable new boy would have issues but there isn't any
on his end yet he's changed his frequencies to everything old boy asked him
to.  They could both co-exist in the same spectrum if old boy would just
face the fact that he needs to step up a little with his network
engenerring, in my opinion.
 
 
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Here is my take:
Old boy was there first
New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner
Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy
 
Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.
 
I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8. 
 

- Jerry
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.
 
 
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.
 
Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.
 
That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.
 
There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to n

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

Hell, with so few words that makes the most sense out of all of this.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 6:44 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Or better yet turn off those silly Omni sites and let the old boy wholesale
on the new boys network. Old boy doesn't have to maintain sites and
bandwidth anymore and the spectrum will get used most efficiently because
both operators will not be trying to dance around each other's channel
plans.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Charles N Wyble
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:33 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Why don't the two WISPS peer with each other? That seems like a much better
outcome to me. Coordinate all your gear together, go in together on backhaul
etc.

Form a strategic partnership.

- --
Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com) Systems craftsman for the stars
http://www.knownelement.com
Mobile: 626 539 4344
Office: 310 929 8793
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=py8H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

But the reality is, New boy saw the signals, albeit weak.  As a good
citizen, he worked around it.  However, if old boy has a stick omni 10 miles
down range giving out a -90 or worse, what's a brother to think?  That's the
problem with omnis, they pick up anything and everything from everywhere.
How can you effectively deal with that unknown.  I have AP's 4, 5, 6 miles
apart, sectorized and using the same spectrum.  No issues.  New boy met with
Old boy a few times and showed him what he was using and suggested he go to
a more professional setup.  No dice.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

This is different than having to deal with consumer routers.

 

This is a matter of paying attention the environment you are rolling into.
Had NB looked at the spectrum, he would have have seen the noise floor and
realized he needed to co-ordinate before rolling out, or looked at a
different band.

 

Instead, NB threw his gear in the air and is now trying to figure out how to
fix it. From a Part-15 "rules" standpoint you are correct. From a
professional standpoint, NB did a crappy job of planning and now wants to
throw the responsibility for his poor planning back on the other guy. 

 

With that said, had NB contacted OB in advance, and discussed co-locating
and OB told him to piss off, then that's a different situation and OB gets
what he deserves.

 

 

- Jerry

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's' (NB)
problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he wants
protection he should have bought spectrum.  

As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying to
interfere with OB's network then OB has to accept interference from NB's
network, just as NB has to accept interference from OB's network.

It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB started taking
some responsibility for his network.

I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town to take
them back because they interfere with my WISP.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: 

Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

 

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

 

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8. 

 

- Jerry

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's report

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

Yep.  That's why I threw this out there.  He was leaning towards not even
going to the meeting but I think the ideas put forth here is giving him the
confidence he needs.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

I agree with your analysis but unless NB is very knowledgeable and sharp in
explaining the law there is a good chance that OB is going to convince or
confuse the audience at that meeting that NB is the villain who should be
thrown off the grain legs. 



On 12/29/2010 12:20 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote: 

Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's' (NB)
problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he wants
protection he should have bought spectrum.  

As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying to
interfere with OB's network then OB has to accept interference from NB's
network, just as NB has to accept interference from OB's network.

It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB started taking
some responsibility for his network.

I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town to take
them back because they interfere with my WISP.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: 

Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

 

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

 

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8. 

 

- Jerry

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has wit

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Justin Wilson]

I know of a similar story.  Only twist is old boy is telling their
customers it¹s all due to new boy.  Can you say slander?
-- 
Justin Wilson 
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support




From: Robert West 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:24:54 -0500
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Actually he did do a scan and in a normal situation  there would be plenty
of room for both however old boy insists on a stick omni as an AP which
tells me that he was marginal at best even without new boy.  New boy tried
to convince old boy to try going to sectors and upgrading things but he¹s
set in his ways.
 
If the noise was intolerable new boy would have issues but there isn¹t any
on his end yet he¹s changed his frequencies to everything old boy asked him
to.  They could both co-exist in the same spectrum if old boy would just
face the fact that he needs to step up a little with his network
engenerring, in my opinion.
 
 
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
 
Here is my take:
Old boy was there first
New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner
Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy
 
Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.
 
I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8.
 

- Jerry
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
 
Problem is old boy doesn¹t want to change a thing, he seems to think he¹s
king of the roost since he was first in.
 
 
 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
 
Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I¹m throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.
 
Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.
 
That¹s the setup.  Now for the trouble.
 
There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It¹s reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn¹t be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, ³What¹s Up?²  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
³Chill, don¹t even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network².
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done,

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

And that's what I've been saying.  He's done about all that could be
expected.  I heard from him tonight that old boy called him yet again
threatening that if new boy didn't buy him out he would sell to someone else
and if he couldn't sell it he'd sue him.  For what, I have no idea.  It's a
technology powered business, everyone, new and old, has to keep evolving.
It's what competition is all about, IMO.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Cameron Crum
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Sounds like you've bent over backwards to this point. I'd now send a letter
to all your tower owners outlining what you've done to be cooperative, list
the applicable CFR references and go tell him to take a flying leap, but
that is just me. We had a competitor (actually a customer who thought it
looked simple) come in and try to "mess" with us. He spent so much time
trying to strong arm our tower owners, kill our signal, take down our
advertising, and bad mouth us, that he neglected the handful of customers he
had. He lasted a little less than a year and we ended up with all his
customers. This is one of the reasons I'm glad to be on another side of this
industry now.

Regards,

Cameron

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson 
wrote:

Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

 

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

 

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8. 

 

- Jerry

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM


To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and t

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

Actually he did do a scan and in a normal situation  there would be plenty
of room for both however old boy insists on a stick omni as an AP which
tells me that he was marginal at best even without new boy.  New boy tried
to convince old boy to try going to sectors and upgrading things but he's
set in his ways.

 

If the noise was intolerable new boy would have issues but there isn't any
on his end yet he's changed his frequencies to everything old boy asked him
to.  They could both co-exist in the same spectrum if old boy would just
face the fact that he needs to step up a little with his network
engenerring, in my opinion.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:16 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

 

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

 

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8. 

 

- Jerry

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
see, about all he can do.  He's within all power regulations and has bent
over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
blast him and take down his network)

 

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
two outside part

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Jerry Richardson]

Briliant!

- Jerry

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:44 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.


Or better yet turn off those silly Omni sites and let the old boy wholesale
on the new boys network. Old boy doesn't have to maintain sites and
bandwidth anymore and the spectrum will get used most efficiently because
both operators will not be trying to dance around each other's channel
plans.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Charles N Wyble
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:33 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Why don't the two WISPS peer with each other? That seems like a much
better outcome to me. Coordinate all your gear together, go in together
on backhaul etc.

Form a strategic partnership.

- --
Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com)
Systems craftsman for the stars
http://www.knownelement.com
Mobile: 626 539 4344
Office: 310 929 8793
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=py8H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




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/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1191 / Virus Database: 1435/3346 - Release Date: 12/29/10



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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Brian Webster]

Or better yet turn off those silly Omni sites and let the old boy wholesale
on the new boys network. Old boy doesn't have to maintain sites and
bandwidth anymore and the spectrum will get used most efficiently because
both operators will not be trying to dance around each other's channel
plans.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Charles N Wyble
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:33 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Why don't the two WISPS peer with each other? That seems like a much
better outcome to me. Coordinate all your gear together, go in together
on backhaul etc.

Form a strategic partnership.

- -- 
Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com)
Systems craftsman for the stars
http://www.knownelement.com
Mobile: 626 539 4344
Office: 310 929 8793
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=py8H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Brian Webster]

Unfortunately Jack is right on this. When I was deploying for EarthLink in
Philly a competitive WISP using Canopy in the 5.7 band got an emergency
session in Federal Court. This judge was sympathetic to the small WISP being
bullied by big EarthLink. We were both running Canopy and small WISP had a
50/50 split while we were running 75/25 upload download ratio. We were not
being bother by them by they were being bothered by us for half of their
uplink time slot. As our lawyers realized the Judge was not buying on to the
you have to accept interference and there are no protection rules, we were
able to force the issue and conversations to the fact that small WISP was
being stubborn and not trying to work things out with us technically. End
result was that we both went to a 66/33 split and all was well. The story to
be learned is that the judge you may be in front of will not understand the
actual law and the technical parameters, he could very well rule on what
that judge thinks is right and shut you down. You would be left to fight
under appeals and probably be off the air the whole time. A very costly
battle, one of which the person with the deepest pockets survives.
Understand that I did not say the one who was in the right survives...

 



Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

I agree with your analysis but unless NB is very knowledgeable and sharp in
explaining the law there is a good chance that OB is going to convince or
confuse the audience at that meeting that NB is the villain who should be
thrown off the grain legs. 



On 12/29/2010 12:20 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote: 

Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's' (NB)
problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he wants
protection he should have bought spectrum.  

As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying to
interfere with OB's network then OB has to accept interference from NB's
network, just as NB has to accept interference from OB's network.

It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB started taking
some responsibility for his network.

I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town to take
them back because they interfere with my WISP.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: 

Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

 

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

 

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8. 

 

- Jerry

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a rounda

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Tom DeReggi]

I dont have the time either, I'm just lazy. And its easier to write, than face 
the reality that I should really be working :-)

After News years, I'll probably disappear for a while, work is piling up.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chuck Hogg 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 5:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.


  Tom:


  I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses you do.  
I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to read them.

  Regards,

  Chuck



  On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi  
wrote:

Robert,

Still missing some relevent detail...

New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?

As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?

Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there 
could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and 
cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest.  This might also come down to who 
has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid 
non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts, 
versus hand shake deals. 

I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad" 
design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)

The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design optimally 
for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new 
providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time.  At the end 
oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he needs 
revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money tree, that 
has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new provider 
because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on a smaller 
scale.

Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference 
resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to 
accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is 
ultimately the best practice.  Its tough for a company who has built a network 
on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz design.
Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual 
pol?  Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction 
isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of 
interference isolation also helps.   If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a new 
provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the 20Mhz 
channel. 

I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on the 
New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy is 
using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, New WISP 
should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and leave Chain 
Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to 20Mhz if you need 
to to regain the capacity.  Problem solved. But if you rely on polarity as the 
mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so much easier than channel 
coordination.  Remember that Polarity isolation often has much better isolation 
than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM you really need 20db of SNR min, and 
polarity isolation will get you that. Its hard to get that without polarity 
isolation.  Bottom line is, if you both choose a different polarity, and stick 
to it, you wont interfere with each other, just with yourself. But, 
self-interference is much easier to isolate, when you know everything about 
your own network, and can make the best choices and trade off for your network. 
And you can make those changes without answering or coordinating with someone 
else. Thats the benefit of relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, 
and new WISP is using sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take 
Verticle and New WISP to take Horizontal. 

Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a 
major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult, 
expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear. 

I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in new 
with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing 
deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a new 
provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it even more 
irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's day and age 
to adeqautely co-exist. 

To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs 
to the new installer during installation. An installtion should not

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Why don't the two WISPS peer with each other? That seems like a much
better outcome to me. Coordinate all your gear together, go in together
on backhaul etc.

Form a strategic partnership.

- -- 
Charles N Wyble (char...@knownelement.com)
Systems craftsman for the stars
http://www.knownelement.com
Mobile: 626 539 4344
Office: 310 929 8793
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=py8H
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Travis Johnson]

I upgraded our main billing server hard disks in the time it took to 
write that reply... :)


Travis
Microserv


On 12/29/2010 3:19 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:

Tom:

I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses 
you do.  I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to 
read them.


Regards,

Chuck


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi 
mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>> wrote:


Robert,
Still missing some relevent detail...
New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that
there could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1)
Coordination and cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest. This
might also come down to who has the best contract with the grain
towers. Whether anyone gained solid non-interference clauses or
spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts, versus hand shake
deals.
I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's
"bad" design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design
optimally for his need, and there was really no need for him to
design for the new providers need, becaue the new provider did not
exist at that time.  At the end oif the day, he has pre-existing
custoemrs that need him and that he needs revenue from, and he
isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money tree, that has been
in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new provider
because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on
a smaller scale.
Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as
interference resilent as possible. But there are multiple
dissimilar approaches to accomplishing that that is jsut as good
as another. So who's to say what is ultimately the best practice. 
Its tough for a company who has built a network on a single pol

and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz design.
Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors
with dual pol?  Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate
physical obstruction isolation between grain towers, and using
polarity as a mechanism of interference isolation also helps. If
some else is operating on 20Mhz, a new provider on 10Mhz may not
help, because it still steps on half the 20Mhz channel.
I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual
Pol on the New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl
MIMO. If Old BOy is using Omnis everywhere he likely is using
Verticle pol everywhere. So, New WISP should physically CAP the
verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and leave Chain Zero on
Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to 20Mhz if you
need to to regain the capacity.  Problem solved. But if you rely
on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies
everything, so much easier than channel coordination.  Remember
that Polarity isolation often has much better isolation than
adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM you really need 20db of SNR
min, and polarity isolation will get you that. Its hard to get
that without polarity isolation.  Bottom line is, if you both
choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere
with each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is
much easier to isolate, when you know everything about your own
network, and can make the best choices and trade off for your
network. And you can make those changes without answering or
coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of relying on
Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using
sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and
New WISP to take Horizontal.
Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use
it, but MIMO has a major flaw, and that is co-existing with
others is much more difficult, expecially if they are using 20Mhz
gear.
I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy.
Comming in new with MIMO gear would surely going to cause
interference to pre-existing deployments, and the MIMO would
restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a new provider came in
with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it even more
irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's
day and age to adeqautely co-exist.
To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference
belongs to the new installer during installation. An installtion
should not continue, if its known to cause interference. This is
the reason its so important for Freq Spectrum Analyzers

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Chuck Hogg]

Tom:

I'm always impressed with the time you take in writing the responses you do.
 I wish I had that kind of time, I barely have enough time to read them.

Regards,

Chuck


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

>  Robert,
>
> Still missing some relevent detail...
>
> New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
> Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?
>
> As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
> Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?
>
>  Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there
> could be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and
> cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest.  This might also come down to
> who has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid
> non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts,
> versus hand shake deals.
>
> I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad"
> design or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)
>
> The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design optimally
> for his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new
> providers need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time.  At the
> end oif the day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he
> needs revenue from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money
> tree, that has been in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new
> provider because, he has more at stake to protect, even though it may be on
> a smaller scale.
>
> Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference
> resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to
> accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is
> ultimately the best practice.  Its tough for a company who has built a
> network on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz
> design.
> Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual
> pol?  Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction
> isolation between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of
> interference isolation also helps.   If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a
> new provider on 10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the 20Mhz
> channel.
>
> I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on the
> New provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy is
> using Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, New
> WISP should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and
> leave Chain Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to
> 20Mhz if you need to to regain the capacity.  Problem solved. But if you
> rely on polarity as the mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so
> much easier than channel coordination.  Remember that Polarity isolation
> often has much better isolation than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM
> you really need 20db of SNR min, and polarity isolation will get you that.
> Its hard to get that without polarity isolation.  Bottom line is, if you
> both choose a different polarity, and stick to it, you wont interfere with
> each other, just with yourself. But, self-interference is much easier to
> isolate, when you know everything about your own network, and can make the
> best choices and trade off for your network. And you can make those changes
> without answering or coordinating with someone else. Thats the benefit of
> relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, and new WISP is using
> sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take Verticle and New WISP
> to take Horizontal.
>
> Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a
> major flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult,
> expecially if they are using 20Mhz gear.
>
> I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in new
> with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing
> deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a
> new provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it
> even more irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's
> day and age to adeqautely co-exist.
>
> To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs
> to the new installer during installation. An installtion should not
> continue, if its known to cause interference. This is the reason its so
> important for Freq Spectrum Analyzers to be built-in to all APs. Thats the
> biggest benefit to Ubiquiti-M ! Did the new provider scan before they
> deployed? Or did they just make a template and start putting it up accross
> all the grain towers everywhere? 2.4Ghz does not have a lot of channels to
> share, and its pushing it to come in enw and overbuilding a pre-

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Tom DeReggi]

Robert,

Still missing some relevent detail...

New WISP uses 2.4 sectors.
Is the Old WISP boy also using 2.4G sectors?

As well, is the Rocket gear Single Pol or MIMO dual pol gear?
Expecially, is the new provider's 5.8G PTP and Rocket Sectors MIMO?

Legally- Part15 means everyone must deploy assuming the risk that there could 
be interference. There are two potential outcomes. 1) Coordination and 
cooperation or 2) survival of the fittest.  This might also come down to who 
has the best contract with the grain towers. Whether anyone gained solid 
non-interference clauses or spectrum exclusivity clauses in their contracts, 
versus hand shake deals. 

I dont agree with the assessment that the problem is the Old Boy's "bad" design 
or unwillingness to change. (see below for justification)

The fact is, he was there first and had the flexibility to design optimally for 
his need, and there was really no need for him to design for the new providers 
need, becaue the new provider did not exist at that time.  At the end oif the 
day, he has pre-existing custoemrs that need him and that he needs revenue 
from, and he isn;t going to bail on that pre-existing money tree, that has been 
in motion for years. He will fight harder than the new provider because, he has 
more at stake to protect, even though it may be on a smaller scale.
 
Both parties are equally obligated to build their networks as interference 
resilent as possible. But there are multiple dissimilar approaches to 
accomplishing that that is jsut as good as another. So who's to say what is 
ultimately the best practice.  Its tough for a company who has built a network 
on a single pol and 20Mhz design, and change to a dual pol 10Mhz design.
Whats less efficient? Dual Omnis each single pol, or two sectors with dual pol? 
 Omnis are not always bad, IF there is adequate physical obstruction isolation 
between grain towers, and using polarity as a mechanism of interference 
isolation also helps.   If some else is operating on 20Mhz, a new provider on 
10Mhz may not help, because it still steps on half the 20Mhz channel. 

I'd argue that the best way to coexist is to get rid of the Dual Pol on the New 
provider's Mimo rockets, IF THEY are using Dual POl MIMO. If Old BOy is using 
Omnis everywhere he likely is using Verticle pol everywhere. So, New WISP 
should physically CAP the verticle pol on their Rocket radios, and leave Chain 
Zero on Horizontal polarity only. Then move new WISP back to 20Mhz if you need 
to to regain the capacity.  Problem solved. But if you rely on polarity as the 
mechanism of isolation, it simplifies everything, so much easier than channel 
coordination.  Remember that Polarity isolation often has much better isolation 
than adjacent channel isolation. With OFDM you really need 20db of SNR min, and 
polarity isolation will get you that. Its hard to get that without polarity 
isolation.  Bottom line is, if you both choose a different polarity, and stick 
to it, you wont interfere with each other, just with yourself. But, 
self-interference is much easier to isolate, when you know everything about 
your own network, and can make the best choices and trade off for your network. 
And you can make those changes without answering or coordinating with someone 
else. Thats the benefit of relying on Pol isolation. If old boy is using Omni, 
and new WISP is using sectors, its a perfect situation for old boy to take 
Verticle and New WISP to take Horizontal. 

Dont get me wrong, I love Ubiquiti MIMO when I can use it, but MIMO has a major 
flaw, and that is co-existing with others is much more difficult, expecially if 
they are using 20Mhz gear. 

I hate to say it, but ethically, I'd side with Old WISP boy. Comming in new 
with MIMO gear would surely going to cause interference to pre-existing 
deployments, and the MIMO would restrict your flexibility to resolve. If a new 
provider came in with UNiquiti standard (non MIMO model), Id call it even more 
irresponsbile. Bulilt-in spectrum analyzers are NEEDED in today's day and age 
to adeqautely co-exist. 

To be honest... I really think the burden to prevent interference belongs to 
the new installer during installation. An installtion should not continue, if 
its known to cause interference. This is the reason its so important for Freq 
Spectrum Analyzers to be built-in to all APs. Thats the biggest benefit to 
Ubiquiti-M ! Did the new provider scan before they deployed? Or did they just 
make a template and start putting it up accross all the grain towers 
everywhere? 2.4Ghz does not have a lot of channels to share, and its pushing it 
to come in enw and overbuilding a pre-existing 2.4 network, as it would be 
almost guarateed to cause some interference.  Ive never respected the Built 
first by brute force, and deal with it later approach, while pre-existing boy's 
customers scream outage.  All that does is create animosity that maybe the new 
WISP things they can just come in and run over e

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Travis Johnson]

I agree with Jerry 100% on this.

Travis
Microserv


On 12/29/2010 1:46 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:


This is different than having to deal with consumer routers.

This is a matter of paying attention the environment you are rolling 
into. Had NB looked at the spectrum, he would have have seen the noise 
floor and realized he needed to co-ordinate before rolling out, or 
looked at a different band.


Instead, NB threw his gear in the air and is now trying to figure out 
how to fix it. From a Part-15 "rules" standpoint you are correct. From 
a professional standpoint, NB did a crappy job of planning and now 
wants to throw the responsibility for his poor planning back on the 
other guy.


With that said, had NB contacted OB in advance, and discussed 
co-locating and OB told him to piss off, then that's a different 
situation and OB gets what he deserves.


- Jerry

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
*On Behalf Of *Sam Tetherow

*Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:21 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's' 
(NB) problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he 
wants protection he should have bought spectrum.


As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying to 
interfere with OB's network then OB has to accept interference from 
NB's network, just as NB has to accept interference from OB's network.


It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB started 
taking some responsibility for his network.


I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town to 
take them back because they interfere with my WISP.


Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:

Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network 
is built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no 
spectrum analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it 
was a no go. New boy needs to look at using a different band or buy 
out old boy.


I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets 
with Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and 
be installing what he should have installed in the first place. New 
boy should include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 
3.65, 5.2, 5.4, and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8.


- Jerry

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org  
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert West

*Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
*To:* 'WISPA General List'
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think 
he's king of the roost since he was first in.


*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org  
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Chuck Hogg

*Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away. 
 Or wait for UBNT AirSync.

Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>> wrote:


I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any 
experience with something like this or any ideas.


Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to 
bring broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea 
of, instead of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the 
broadband for free in exchange for using the legs for access points 
and sell the service to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, 
obviously, so he built out a fairly good sized network.  For equipment 
he is using all Ubiquiti radios and CPE units and with Pac grids and 
Bullets for his back haul and Rockets with sectors at the APs.  
Network has been working perfectly.


That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or 
so.  (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but 
chose not to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is 
in love with Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he 
goes for large grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far 
as he can go, 5 miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is 
using 5.8 for Back Haul, 2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost 
immediately.  Interference taking down his network.  New wisp changes 
channels to those suggested by old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  
New wisp changes channels again.  Another phone call, he changes yet 
again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels to give 

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Jerry Richardson]

This is different than having to deal with consumer routers.

This is a matter of paying attention the environment you are rolling into. Had 
NB looked at the spectrum, he would have have seen the noise floor and realized 
he needed to co-ordinate before rolling out, or looked at a different band.

Instead, NB threw his gear in the air and is now trying to figure out how to 
fix it. From a Part-15 "rules" standpoint you are correct. From a professional 
standpoint, NB did a crappy job of planning and now wants to throw the 
responsibility for his poor planning back on the other guy.

With that said, had NB contacted OB in advance, and discussed co-locating and 
OB told him to piss off, then that's a different situation and OB gets what he 
deserves.


- Jerry

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's' (NB) 
problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he wants protection 
he should have bought spectrum.

As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying to interfere 
with OB's network then OB has to accept interference from NB's network, just as 
NB has to accept interference from OB's network.

It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB started taking 
some responsibility for his network.

I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town to take them 
back because they interfere with my WISP.

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:
Here is my take:
Old boy was there first
New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner
Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is built 
(it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum analysis was 
done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New boy needs to 
look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with 
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be installing 
what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should include in the 
tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4, and whatever unused 
channels there are on 5.8.

- Jerry

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's king 
of the roost since he was first in.



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or wait 
for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>> wrote:
I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any 
experience with something like this or any ideas.

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring 
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead of 
charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for free in 
exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service to local 
customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a fairly good 
sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios and CPE units and 
with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets with sectors at the 
APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.  
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not to 
use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with Bullets 
and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large grids and 
Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5 miles or more on 
those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul, 2.4 for CPE.  Old 
WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference taking down his network.  
New wisp changes channels to those suggested by old wisp.  Calls again, 
interference.  New wisp changes channels again.  Another phone call, he changes 
yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels to give more room.  Still the 
phone calls.  For a time it was every evening he would have to deal with old 
wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old wisp then star

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Jack Unger]

  
  
I agree with your analysis but unless NB is very knowledgeable and
sharp in explaining the law there is a good chance that OB is going
to convince or confuse the audience at that meeting that NB is the
villain who should be thrown off the grain legs. 



On 12/29/2010 12:20 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote:

  
  Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's'
  (NB) problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he
  wants protection he should have bought spectrum.  
  
  As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying
  to interfere with OB's network then OB has to accept interference
  from NB's network, just as NB has to accept interference from OB's
  network.
  
  It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB
  started taking some responsibility for his network.
  
  I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town
  to take them back because they interfere with my WISP.
  
      Sam Tetherow
      Sandhills Wireless
  
  
  On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:
  





  Here is my take:
  Old boy was there first
  New boy rolls in on a sweet deal
  for tower owner
  Old boy's network is hosed due
  to interference from new boy
   
  Sound like new boy is the
  problem regardless of how old boy's network is built (it
  worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no
  spectrum analysis was done in advance or new boy would
  have seen it was a no go. New boy needs to look at using a
  different band or buy out old boy.
   
  I would HIGHLY recommend new boy
  bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with Sectors. He
  will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
  installing what he should have installed in the first
  place. New boy should include in the tower agreement
  language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4, and whatever
  unused channels there are on 5.8. 
   
  
- Jerry
  
   
  

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
  [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
  On Behalf Of Robert West
  Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
  To: 'WISPA General List'
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor
  happy.

  
   
  Problem is old boy doesn’t want
  to change a thing, he seems to think he’s king of the
  roost since he was first in.
   
   
   
  
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor
happy.
  
   
  Have
everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go
away.  Or wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck
  
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert
  West 

  wrote:

  
I’m throwing this out
  there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
  experience with something like this or any ideas.
 
Within the past year this
  operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
  broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator
  had the idea of, instead of charging the grain dealer
  for the install, to offer the broadband for free in
  exchange for using the legs for access points and sell
  the service to local customers.  The grain dealer
  agreed, obviously, so he built out a fairly good sized
  network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti
  radios and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets
  for his back haul and Rockets with sectors at the
  APs.  Network has been working perfectly.
 
That’s the setup.  Now for
  the trouble.
 
There was and still is an
  existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so. 
  (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a
  roundabout way but chose not to use him for whatever
  

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Sam Tetherow]

Not sure how 'old boy's' (OB) crappy network design is 'new boy's' (NB) 
problem.  Unlicensed spectrum is just that, unlicensed, if he wants 
protection he should have bought spectrum.


As long as NB is following part15 rules and not maliciously trying to 
interfere with OB's network then OB has to accept interference from NB's 
network, just as NB has to accept interference from OB's network.


It seems that NB has tried to get along, it is about time OB started 
taking some responsibility for his network.


I don't get to tell everyone that bought a wireless router in town to 
take them back because they interfere with my WISP.


Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless


On 12/29/10 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:


Here is my take:

Old boy was there first

New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner

Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network 
is built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no 
spectrum analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it 
was a no go. New boy needs to look at using a different band or buy 
out old boy.


I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets 
with Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and 
be installing what he should have installed in the first place. New 
boy should include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 
3.65, 5.2, 5.4, and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8.


- Jerry

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
*On Behalf Of *Robert West

*Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
*To:* 'WISPA General List'
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think 
he's king of the roost since he was first in.


*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
*On Behalf Of *Chuck Hogg

*Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away. 
 Or wait for UBNT AirSync.

Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>> wrote:


I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any 
experience with something like this or any ideas.


Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to 
bring broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea 
of, instead of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the 
broadband for free in exchange for using the legs for access points 
and sell the service to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, 
obviously, so he built out a fairly good sized network.  For equipment 
he is using all Ubiquiti radios and CPE units and with Pac grids and 
Bullets for his back haul and Rockets with sectors at the APs.  
Network has been working perfectly.


That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or 
so.  (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but 
chose not to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is 
in love with Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he 
goes for large grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far 
as he can go, 5 miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is 
using 5.8 for Back Haul, 2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost 
immediately.  Interference taking down his network.  New wisp changes 
channels to those suggested by old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  
New wisp changes channels again.  Another phone call, he changes yet 
again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels to give more room.  Still 
the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening he would have to 
deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old wisp then 
starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad 
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp 
then wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell 
new wisp, "Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct 
tape network".  New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how 
long that sucker takes and the limitations it has with number of 
channels and the $$ premium per unit.  New wisp has been very nice to 
all parties and has done, from what I see, about all he can do.  He's 
within all power regulations and has bent over backwards to every 
request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last comments from old 
WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words, blast him 
and take down his network)


Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put 
together a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg 
owners, new wisp and two outside parties, one of which is related to 
old wisp boy.


New Wisp is 

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[RickG]

I had this happen once. We met and decided that even though I was the old
boy, I went ahead and switched to 900MHz. In the end, we got all the NLOS
 customers and he only got the fewer LOS.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West wrote:

> I’m throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
> experience with something like this or any ideas.
>
>
>
> Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
> broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
> of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
> free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
> to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
> fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
> and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
> with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.
>
>
>
> That’s the setup.  Now for the trouble.
>
>
>
> There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
> (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
> to use him for whatever reason)  It’s reported that boy is in love with
> Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
> grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
> miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
> 2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
> taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
> old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
> Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
> to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
> he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn’t be happy.  Old
> wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
> mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, “What’s Up?”  Old wisp then
> wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
> “Chill, don’t even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network”.
> New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
> and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
> unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
> see, about all he can do.  He’s within all power regulations and has bent
> over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
> comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
> blast him and take down his network)
>
>
>
> Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
> a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
> two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.
>
>
>
> New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
> upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
> competing channel.
>
>
>
> Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
> Surely someone here has been there before.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Robert West
>
> Just Micro Digital Services Inc.
>
> 740-335-7020
>
>
>
> [image: 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Cameron Crum]

Sounds like you've bent over backwards to this point. I'd now send a letter
to all your tower owners outlining what you've done to be cooperative, list
the applicable CFR references and go tell him to take a flying leap, but
that is just me. We had a competitor (actually a customer who thought it
looked simple) come in and try to "mess" with us. He spent so much time
trying to strong arm our tower owners, kill our signal, take down our
advertising, and bad mouth us, that he neglected the handful of customers he
had. He lasted a little less than a year and we ended up with all his
customers. This is one of the reasons I'm glad to be on another side of this
industry now.

Regards,

Cameron

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Jerry Richardson
wrote:

> Here is my take:
>
> Old boy was there first
>
> New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner
>
> Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy
>
>
>
> Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is
> built (it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum
> analysis was done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New
> boy needs to look at using a different band or buy out old boy.
>
>
>
> I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with
> Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be
> installing what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should
> include in the tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4,
> and whatever unused channels there are on 5.8.
>
>
>
> - Jerry
>
>
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Robert West
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
>
> *To:* 'WISPA General List'
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
>
>
>
> Problem is old boy doesn’t want to change a thing, he seems to think he’s
> king of the roost since he was first in.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Chuck Hogg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.
>
>
>
> Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
> wait for UBNT AirSync.
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
> wrote:
>
> I’m throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
> experience with something like this or any ideas.
>
>
>
> Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
> broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
> of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
> free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
> to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
> fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
> and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
> with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.
>
>
>
> That’s the setup.  Now for the trouble.
>
>
>
> There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
> (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
> to use him for whatever reason)  It’s reported that boy is in love with
> Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
> grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
> miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
> 2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
> taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
> old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
> Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
> to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
> he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn’t be happy.  Old
> wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
> mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, “What’s Up?”  Old wisp then
> wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
> “Chill, don’t even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network”.
> New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
> and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
> unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
> see, about all he can do.  He’s within all power regulations and has bent
> over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
> comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
> blast him and take down his network)
>
>
>
> Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
> a meeting betw

Re: [WISPA] dedicated bandwidth

[RickG]

Bingo! Thats exactly what I'm looking for. I think that is the correct way
to separate the two (besides the other benefits). So, in your case, the
difference is the amount of transfer per month? That show I did it a long
time ago. My only concern is that they'll beat me up 9am-5pm during business
hours but still fall under the cap definition. So, I was thinking of
defining "sustained usage". Something like "greater than 100Kbps average for
an hour or more on any given day". IDK - just brainstorming with everyone.
Thanks!

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Eric Rogers wrote:

> We have bandwidth allotments, and each package has a certain amount.  If
> they upgrade all the way to our business packages, and still fall outside of
> the allotments; either they pay the overages, or they switch to dedicated
> where it is truly unlimited.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:01 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] dedicated bandwidth
>
>
>
> For usage or for sales?
>
>
>
> -
>
> Mike Hammett
>
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>
> On 12/28/2010 1:53 PM, RickG wrote:
>
> I have a customer that I suspect will use the connection 24x7. How does
> everyone define a "dedicated" connection?
> --
> -RickG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] dedicated bandwidth

[RickG]

Simular to what I do. But if I were my customer, I wouldnt buy dedicated
because the regular service is just a good!

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 10:34 AM, John Scrivner  wrote:

> Residential service = best effort with a maximum speed (no SLA provided)
>
> Dedicated / Commercial Service = Max speed = CIR in SLA. We also
> provide priority service evenings and weekends for those customers.
> For residential we will run service calls first come first served and
> within 24 hours of report of trouble.
> Hope that helps,
> John Scrivner
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:58 PM, RickG  wrote:
> > I appreciate all the feedback but my questions was not about cost, it was
> > about definition. What defines dedicated? Is it a minimum amount of
> > bandwidth per hour, day, week, month or ?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis  wrote:
> >>
> >> commercial connection.  sell as x amount of bits/sec and bill
> accordingly.
> >>
> >> On 12/28/2010 2:53 PM, RickG wrote:
> >>
> >> I have a customer that I suspect will use the connection 24x7. How does
> >> everyone define a "dedicated" connection?
> >> --
> >> -RickG
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> >> 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/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -RickG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 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/
>



-- 
-RickG



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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Jerry Richardson]

Here is my take:
Old boy was there first
New boy rolls in on a sweet deal for tower owner
Old boy's network is hosed due to interference from new boy

Sound like new boy is the problem regardless of how old boy's network is built 
(it worked before new boy came along). I'm guessing no spectrum analysis was 
done in advance or new boy would have seen it was a no go. New boy needs to 
look at using a different band or buy out old boy.

I would HIGHLY recommend new boy bail on 2.4, and use 5.8 UBNT Rockets with 
Sectors. He will be able to provide a higher class of service and be installing 
what he should have installed in the first place. New boy should include in the 
tower agreement language for exclusivity on 3.65, 5.2, 5.4, and whatever unused 
channels there are on 5.8.

- Jerry

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's king 
of the roost since he was first in.



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or wait 
for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>> wrote:
I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any 
experience with something like this or any ideas.

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring 
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead of 
charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for free in 
exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service to local 
customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a fairly good 
sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios and CPE units and 
with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets with sectors at the 
APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.  
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not to 
use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with Bullets 
and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large grids and 
Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5 miles or more on 
those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul, 2.4 for CPE.  Old 
WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference taking down his network.  
New wisp changes channels to those suggested by old wisp.  Calls again, 
interference.  New wisp changes channels again.  Another phone call, he changes 
yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels to give more room.  Still the 
phone calls.  For a time it was every evening he would have to deal with old 
wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old wisp then starts calling the owners 
of the grain legs raising hell and bad mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new 
wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then wants to sell his network to new wisp for 
fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp, "Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot 
and his duct tape network".  New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know 
how long that sucker takes and the limitations it has with number of channels 
and the $$ premium per unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and 
has done, from what I see, about all he can do.  He's within all power 
regulations and has bent over backwards to every request put to him by this 
guy.  (One of the last comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector 
and, in so many words, blast him and take down his network)

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together a 
meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and two 
outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.

New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp 
upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a competing 
channel.

Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?   
Surely someone here has been there before.

Thanks!

Robert West
Just Micro Digital Services Inc.
740-335-7020

[?ui=2&ik=6f8b8fe18b&view=att&th=12d32a053941dcc3&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&zw]





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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Brian Webster]

Might be worth bringing up those rulings in the 3.65 bands about no first
squatters rights and mention to old boy that if they don't get those rights
in a licensed service, he should not expect them in unlicensed. You are
still going to have to keep the mindset that this guy is thinking "my mind
is made up, don't try to confuse me with the facts".  Some people like to
refer to capitalism as being great until they have a competitor show up
trying to take some of their market share...then the capitalism should only
apply to them because they thought of it first...

 



Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Robert West
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:01 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
see, about all he can do.  He's within all power regulations and has bent
over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
blast him and take down his network)

 

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.

 

New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
competing channel.

 

Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
Surely someone here has been there before.

 

Thanks!

 

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/

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

Problem is old boy doesn't want to change a thing, he seems to think he's
king of the roost since he was first in.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck



On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
see, about all he can do.  He's within all power regulations and has bent
over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
blast him and take down his network)

 

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.

 

New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
competing channel.

 

Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
Surely someone here has been there before.

 

Thanks!

 

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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

He tried 5ghz from the very start but due to the tree situation he couldn't
get any penetration but 2.4 put him where he wanted to be.  I had the same
reservations about using 2.4 but he's been flying just fine with no issues
on his side of things.  The issue is, as you pointed out, a poorly designed
network that will never tolerate interference.

 

Good thoughts, thanks.

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 12:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

 

Rather than 3.65 is there a reason not to use 5GHz?  I haven't tested the
DTS stuff yet, but if it works in AirMax it would open plenty of spectrum
(assuming you don't have radar issues).  Even so I would look at 5MHz Airmax
channels in the 5GHz range, if old wisp is running 2.4 shouldn't be an
issue,  your only conflict would be your backhauls and depending on backhaul
distance you can use 5.2 or 3.6 when you gets the license.  I haven't hung
any new 2.4 gear in over 3 years because the spectrum has gotten so bad and
I'm in pretty much the middle of nowhere.

As for resolution with the old wisp, I would go to the meeting, say I've
tried to get along with the old wisp, but that his system was set up in such
as way as to not be able to handle the noise that is inherent to license
free spectrum.  Include the appropriate quotes from part15 about accepting
interference.

I'm assuming new wisp customers aren't having a problem.  I would point that
out.  My network is fine because it is designed properly his is falling down
because it was designed poorly.  I would also point out that all of your
equipment falls within part15 specifications (if you are using AirMax for
everything it should).  I would asked the competitor to provide similar
assurances.

On 12/29/10 10:21 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: 

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck



On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
wrote:

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
see, about all he can do.  He's within all power regulations and has bent
over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
blast him and take down his network)

 

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.

 

New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
competing channel.

 

Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
Surely someone here has been

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Sam Tetherow]

Rather than 3.65 is there a reason not to use 5GHz?  I haven't tested 
the DTS stuff yet, but if it works in AirMax it would open plenty of 
spectrum (assuming you don't have radar issues).  Even so I would look 
at 5MHz Airmax channels in the 5GHz range, if old wisp is running 2.4 
shouldn't be an issue,  your only conflict would be your backhauls and 
depending on backhaul distance you can use 5.2 or 3.6 when you gets the 
license.  I haven't hung any new 2.4 gear in over 3 years because the 
spectrum has gotten so bad and I'm in pretty much the middle of nowhere.


As for resolution with the old wisp, I would go to the meeting, say I've 
tried to get along with the old wisp, but that his system was set up in 
such as way as to not be able to handle the noise that is inherent to 
license free spectrum.  Include the appropriate quotes from part15 about 
accepting interference.


I'm assuming new wisp customers aren't having a problem.  I would point 
that out.  My network is fine because it is designed properly his is 
falling down because it was designed poorly.  I would also point out 
that all of your equipment falls within part15 specifications (if you 
are using AirMax for everything it should).  I would asked the 
competitor to provide similar assurances.


On 12/29/10 10:21 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away. 
 Or wait for UBNT AirSync.

Regards,

Chuck


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West 
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>> wrote:


I’m throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has
any experience with something like this or any ideas.

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator
to bring broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had
the idea of, instead of charging the grain dealer for the install,
to offer the broadband for free in exchange for using the legs for
access points and sell the service to local customers.  The grain
dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a fairly good sized
network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios and CPE
units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

That’s the setup.  Now for the trouble.

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers
or so.  (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout
way but chose not to use him for whatever reason)  It’s reported
that boy is in love with Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his
APs.  For CPEs he goes for large grids and Bullets, I believe.  He
also pushes it as far as he can go, 5 miles or more on those OMNI
APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul, 2.4 for CPE.  Old
WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference taking down
his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by old
wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels
again.  Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down
to 10MHz channels to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For
a time it was every evening he would have to deal with old wisp
and still he wouldn’t be happy.  Old wisp then starts calling the
owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad mouthing new wisp. 
Leg owner calls new wisp, “What’s Up?”  Old wisp then wants to

sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
“Chill, don’t even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape
network”.  New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how
long that sucker takes and the limitations it has with number of
channels and the $$ premium per unit.  New wisp has been very nice
to all parties and has done, from what I see, about all he can
do.  He’s within all power regulations and has bent over backwards
to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so
many words, blast him and take down his network)

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put
together a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg
owners, new wisp and two outside parties, one of which is related
to old wisp boy.

New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than
old wisp upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF
away from a competing channel.

Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old
wisp boy ?   Surely someone here has been there before.

Thanks!

Robert West

Just Micro Digital Services Inc.

740-335-7020

Logo5






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



WISPA Wireless 

Re: [WISPA] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Chuck Hogg]

Have everyone use Canopy, sync the aps together, and problems go away.  Or
wait for UBNT AirSync.
Regards,

Chuck


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Robert West wrote:

> I’m throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
> experience with something like this or any ideas.
>
>
>
> Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
> broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
> of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
> free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
> to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
> fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
> and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
> with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.
>
>
>
> That’s the setup.  Now for the trouble.
>
>
>
> There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
> (Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
> to use him for whatever reason)  It’s reported that boy is in love with
> Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
> grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
> miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
> 2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
> taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
> old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
> Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
> to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
> he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn’t be happy.  Old
> wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
> mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, “What’s Up?”  Old wisp then
> wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
> “Chill, don’t even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network”.
> New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
> and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
> unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
> see, about all he can do.  He’s within all power regulations and has bent
> over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
> comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
> blast him and take down his network)
>
>
>
> Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
> a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
> two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.
>
>
>
> New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
> upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
> competing channel.
>
>
>
> Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
> Surely someone here has been there before.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Robert West
>
> Just Micro Digital Services Inc.
>
> 740-335-7020
>
>
>
> [image: 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] dedicated bandwidth

[John Scrivner]

Residential service = best effort with a maximum speed (no SLA provided)

Dedicated / Commercial Service = Max speed = CIR in SLA. We also
provide priority service evenings and weekends for those customers.
For residential we will run service calls first come first served and
within 24 hours of report of trouble.
Hope that helps,
John Scrivner


On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:58 PM, RickG  wrote:
> I appreciate all the feedback but my questions was not about cost, it was
> about definition. What defines dedicated? Is it a minimum amount of
> bandwidth per hour, day, week, month or ?
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis  wrote:
>>
>> commercial connection.  sell as x amount of bits/sec and bill accordingly.
>>
>> On 12/28/2010 2:53 PM, RickG wrote:
>>
>> I have a customer that I suspect will use the connection 24x7. How does
>> everyone define a "dedicated" connection?
>> --
>> -RickG
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> -RickG
>
>
>
> 
> 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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Jeromie Reeves]

I NAT at the border just fine. It is 1:1 and not 100:1 however. I
provide the first public free, the next (for 2+ consoles) is extra. I
wish IPv6 was moving faster.

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> Another reason why you don't NAT at the border.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> On 12/28/2010 6:57 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>
> Well now I don't think I can do that to the one customer since the NAT is at
> the border.  Then all the other customers would call because their game
> doesn't work.
> And that customer has a least 2 units.
>
> On 12/28/2010 7:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> Then you will need to port forward 3074 to the xbox.  Obviously limited to 1
> that way.
>
> On Dec 28, 2010 7:16 PM, "Scott Reed"  wrote:
>> Since we NAT at the border, a packet sent to the address/port
>> combination will get to the customer XBox. They are using a switch on
>> the inside.
>>
>> On 12/28/2010 7:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> Did you PAT to the xbox? Ie if a packet is sent to the customers ip
>>> seen by the world, would it hit the xbox?
>>>
>>> On Dec 28, 2010 7:08 PM, "Scott Reed" >> > wrote:
>>> > Since we have all ports open, well at least the ones described in
>>> > anything I can find about XBox NAT, and NAT at the border, why would
>>> > customers not have "open" NAT?
>>> >
>>> > On 12/28/2010 7:03 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote:
>>> >> Not the best description, but
>>> >> http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=451043
>>> >>
>>> >> I know the post you are talking about, but I can't seem to find it
>>> either.
>>> >>
>>> >> On 12/28/10 4:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>> >>> I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of
>>> Microsoft's
>>> >>> definition of restrict NAT, etc.
>>> >>> I can not find that link. Would someone please remind me where to
>>> look.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>> 
>>> >> 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/
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Scott Reed
>>> > Owner
>>> > NewWays Networking, LLC
>>> > Wireless Networking
>>> > Network Design, Installation and Administration
>>> > Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>>> > www.nwwnet.net 
>>> > (765) 855-1060
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> 
>>> > 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/
>>
>> --
>> Scott Reed
>> Owner
>> NewWays Networking, LLC
>> Wireless Networking
>> Network Design, Installation and Administration
>> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>> www.nwwnet.net
>> (765) 855-1060
>>
>
>
>
> 
> 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/
>
> --
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
> www.nwwnet.net
> (765) 855-1060
>
>
> 
> 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] Can't make a competitor happy.

[Robert West]

I'm throwing this out there for another WISP to see if anyone has any
experience with something like this or any ideas.

 

Within the past year this operator was asked by a grain operator to bring
broadband to all of their grain legs.  The operator had the idea of, instead
of charging the grain dealer for the install, to offer the broadband for
free in exchange for using the legs for access points and sell the service
to local customers.  The grain dealer agreed, obviously, so he built out a
fairly good sized network.  For equipment he is using all Ubiquiti radios
and CPE units and with Pac grids and Bullets for his back haul and Rockets
with sectors at the APs.  Network has been working perfectly.

 

That's the setup.  Now for the trouble.

 

There was and still is an existing WISP in the area.  60 customers or so.
(Grain dealer is associated with OLD wisp in a roundabout way but chose not
to use him for whatever reason)  It's reported that boy is in love with
Bullets and OMNI antennas on all of his APs.  For CPEs he goes for large
grids and Bullets, I believe.  He also pushes it as far as he can go, 5
miles or more on those OMNI APs.  New operator is using 5.8 for Back Haul,
2.4 for CPE.  Old WISP calls new WISP almost immediately.  Interference
taking down his network.  New wisp changes channels to those suggested by
old wisp.  Calls again, interference.  New wisp changes channels again.
Another phone call, he changes yet again.  Then drops down to 10MHz channels
to give more room.  Still the phone calls.  For a time it was every evening
he would have to deal with old wisp and still he wouldn't be happy.  Old
wisp then starts calling the owners of the grain legs raising hell and bad
mouthing new wisp.  Leg owner calls new wisp, "What's Up?"  Old wisp then
wants to sell his network to new wisp for fantasy cash.  I tell new wisp,
"Chill, don't even think of buying that idiot and his duct tape network".
New wisp then buys a 3.65 license but we all know how long that sucker takes
and the limitations it has with number of channels and the $$ premium per
unit.  New wisp has been very nice to all parties and has done, from what I
see, about all he can do.  He's within all power regulations and has bent
over backwards to every request put to him by this guy.  (One of the last
comments from old WISP was that he would get a sector and, in so many words,
blast him and take down his network)

 

Now the latest.  Old wisp has contacted the leg owners and has put together
a meeting between old wisp, all of new wisps grain leg owners, new wisp and
two outside parties, one of which is related to old wisp boy.

 

New Wisp is at a loss to what more can be accomplished other than old wisp
upgrade his OMNIs to sectors in order to isolate the RF away from a
competing channel.

 

Anyone have any solid resolutions that he can throw out to old wisp boy ?
Surely someone here has been there before.

 

Thanks!

 

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] dedicated bandwidth

[Eric Rogers]

We have bandwidth allotments, and each package has a certain amount.  If
they upgrade all the way to our business packages, and still fall
outside of the allotments; either they pay the overages, or they switch
to dedicated where it is truly unlimited.

 

Eric

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] dedicated bandwidth

 

For usage or for sales?



 
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
 


On 12/28/2010 1:53 PM, RickG wrote: 

I have a customer that I suspect will use the connection 24x7. How does
everyone define a "dedicated" connection? 
-- 
-RickG



 
 
 
 


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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Josh Luthman]

Yes

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> I would assume so.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 12/29/2010 8:23 AM, Scott Reed wrote:
> > Doesn't UPnP require the NAT device be the next upstream device?
> >
> > On 12/29/2010 7:59 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >> My XBox has had Open NAT since 2.9.x.  You just forward port 3074 (I
> >> think that's the port) to the XBox's IP.
> >>
> >> Newer versions (I forget the starting version) will do uPNP with
> >> multiple XBoxes.
> >>
> >> -
> >> Mike Hammett
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/28/2010 7:04 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> >>> Thank you, Blake.  That is the one.  After the memory refresh, I still
> >>> have one question.  The router doing the NAT is a Mikrotik running
> >>> 3.30.  Is there a way to make it do Open NAT?
> >>>
> >>> On 12/28/2010 7:41 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
>  On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> 
> > I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of
> Microsoft's
> > definition of restrict NAT, etc.
> > I can not find that link.  Would someone please remind me where to
> look.
>  http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/NATs-and-xbox-live
> 
>  --
>  Blake Covarrubias
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Mike Hammett]

I would assume so.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/29/2010 8:23 AM, Scott Reed wrote:
> Doesn't UPnP require the NAT device be the next upstream device?
>
> On 12/29/2010 7:59 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> My XBox has had Open NAT since 2.9.x.  You just forward port 3074 (I
>> think that's the port) to the XBox's IP.
>>
>> Newer versions (I forget the starting version) will do uPNP with
>> multiple XBoxes.
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/28/2010 7:04 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>> Thank you, Blake.  That is the one.  After the memory refresh, I still
>>> have one question.  The router doing the NAT is a Mikrotik running
>>> 3.30.  Is there a way to make it do Open NAT?
>>>
>>> On 12/28/2010 7:41 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
 On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:

> I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of Microsoft's
> definition of restrict NAT, etc.
> I can not find that link.  Would someone please remind me where to look.
 http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/NATs-and-xbox-live

 --
 Blake Covarrubias


 
 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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Scott Reed]

Doesn't UPnP require the NAT device be the next upstream device?

On 12/29/2010 7:59 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> My XBox has had Open NAT since 2.9.x.  You just forward port 3074 (I
> think that's the port) to the XBox's IP.
>
> Newer versions (I forget the starting version) will do uPNP with
> multiple XBoxes.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 12/28/2010 7:04 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> Thank you, Blake.  That is the one.  After the memory refresh, I still
>> have one question.  The router doing the NAT is a Mikrotik running
>> 3.30.  Is there a way to make it do Open NAT?
>>
>> On 12/28/2010 7:41 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>>
 I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of Microsoft's
 definition of restrict NAT, etc.
 I can not find that link.  Would someone please remind me where to look.
>>> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/NATs-and-xbox-live
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blake Covarrubias
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>

-- 
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060





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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Josh Luthman]

4.6 in Mikrotik
On Dec 29, 2010 7:59 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
> My XBox has had Open NAT since 2.9.x. You just forward port 3074 (I
> think that's the port) to the XBox's IP.
>
> Newer versions (I forget the starting version) will do uPNP with
> multiple XBoxes.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 12/28/2010 7:04 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> Thank you, Blake. That is the one. After the memory refresh, I still
>> have one question. The router doing the NAT is a Mikrotik running
>> 3.30. Is there a way to make it do Open NAT?
>>
>> On 12/28/2010 7:41 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>>
 I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of Microsoft's
 definition of restrict NAT, etc.
 I can not find that link. Would someone please remind me where to look.
>>> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/NATs-and-xbox-live
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blake Covarrubias
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> 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] dedicated bandwidth

[Mike Hammett]

Higher speeds, first in support queues, ability to run at connection 
speed all month for no increase in the bill, ability to do 95% billing, 
BGP, etc.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/28/2010 9:05 PM, RickG wrote:
Sorry, I'm not being clear. What defines the difference between your 
dedicated and non-dedicated? In other words, why would a customer pay 
more for it?


On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jeremie Chism > wrote:


My dedicated plan is a capped bandwidth. No limit on usage per month.

Sent from my iPhone4

On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:58 PM, RickG mailto:rgunder...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I appreciate all the feedback but my questions was not about
cost, it was about definition. What defines dedicated? Is it a
minimum amount of bandwidth per hour, day, week, month or ?

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Blair Davis mailto:the...@wmwisp.net>> wrote:

commercial connection.  sell as x amount of bits/sec and bill
accordingly.


On 12/28/2010 2:53 PM, RickG wrote:

I have a customer that I suspect will use the connection
24x7. How does everyone define a "dedicated" connection?
-- 
-RickG







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/




-- 
-RickG





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/




--
-RickG





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] dedicated bandwidth

[Mike Hammett]

For usage or for sales?

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/28/2010 1:53 PM, RickG wrote:
I have a customer that I suspect will use the connection 24x7. How 
does everyone define a "dedicated" connection?

--
-RickG





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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Mike Hammett]

My XBox has had Open NAT since 2.9.x.  You just forward port 3074 (I 
think that's the port) to the XBox's IP.

Newer versions (I forget the starting version) will do uPNP with 
multiple XBoxes.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/28/2010 7:04 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> Thank you, Blake.  That is the one.  After the memory refresh, I still
> have one question.  The router doing the NAT is a Mikrotik running
> 3.30.  Is there a way to make it do Open NAT?
>
> On 12/28/2010 7:41 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>
>>> I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of Microsoft's
>>> definition of restrict NAT, etc.
>>> I can not find that link.  Would someone please remind me where to look.
>> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/NATs-and-xbox-live
>>
>> --
>> Blake Covarrubias
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Mike Hammett]

Another reason why you don't NAT at the border.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 12/28/2010 6:57 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
Well now I don't think I can do that to the one customer since the NAT 
is at the border.  Then all the other customers would call because 
their game doesn't work.

And that customer has a least 2 units.

On 12/28/2010 7:19 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:


Then you will need to port forward 3074 to the xbox.  Obviously 
limited to 1 that way.


On Dec 28, 2010 7:16 PM, "Scott Reed" > wrote:

> Since we NAT at the border, a packet sent to the address/port
> combination will get to the customer XBox. They are using a switch on
> the inside.
>
> On 12/28/2010 7:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Did you PAT to the xbox? Ie if a packet is sent to the customers ip
>> seen by the world, would it hit the xbox?
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2010 7:08 PM, "Scott Reed" 

>> >> wrote:
>> > Since we have all ports open, well at least the ones described in
>> > anything I can find about XBox NAT, and NAT at the border, why would
>> > customers not have "open" NAT?
>> >
>> > On 12/28/2010 7:03 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote:
>> >> Not the best description, but
>> >> http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=451043
>> >>
>> >> I know the post you are talking about, but I can't seem to find it
>> either.
>> >>
>> >> On 12/28/10 4:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> >>> I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of
>> Microsoft's
>> >>> definition of restrict NAT, etc.
>> >>> I can not find that link. Would someone please remind me where to
>> look.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> 


>> >> 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/
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Scott Reed
>> > Owner
>> > NewWays Networking, LLC
>> > Wireless Networking
>> > Network Design, Installation and Administration
>> > Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>> > www.nwwnet.net  
>> > (765) 855-1060
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 


>> > 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/
>
> --
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
> www.nwwnet.net 
> (765) 855-1060
>





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/


--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060





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:
htt

Re: [WISPA] XBOX Restricted NAT Reminder

[Scott Reed]

I figured the 1:1 was what would have to happen.  Since that ties up a 
public address, we charge for it.  He wasn't real keen on that.
Yes, we have 100+ customers per NATted public IP address.

On 12/28/2010 11:10 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> The only way to make it Open is to 1:1 NAT or make it the default for
> all packets on their NAT IP. I nat at the border and just assign
> another IP and do subnet:1 NAt and then make the console the default.
> Do you have more then 1 customer per NAT IP??
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Scott Reed  wrote:
>> Thank you, Blake.  That is the one.  After the memory refresh, I still
>> have one question.  The router doing the NAT is a Mikrotik running
>> 3.30.  Is there a way to make it do Open NAT?
>>
>> On 12/28/2010 7:41 PM, Blake Covarrubias wrote:
>>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>>
 I know someone posted a link to an excellent description of Microsoft's
 definition of restrict NAT, etc.
 I can not find that link.  Would someone please remind me where to look.
>>> http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/NATs-and-xbox-live
>>>
>>> --
>>> Blake Covarrubias
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>> --
>> Scott Reed
>> Owner
>> NewWays Networking, LLC
>> Wireless Networking
>> Network Design, Installation and Administration
>> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>> www.nwwnet.net
>> (765) 855-1060
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>

-- 
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060





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/