Re: [WISPA] 900MHz performance (Latency, Throughput)
I have gotten just under 3Mb/s down and 400Kb up on a Canopy system at short range (5 miles or so). I don't do very many installs anymore so I can't give you an idea of latency. Not sure if thruput drops significantly on longer ranges or if latency increases either.On Feb 20, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Dylan Bouterse wrote: We are in the beginning stages of evaluating 900MHz for our wireless portfolio. I’m very interested to hear about implemented systems and what kind of max throughput and latency is expected. Any help is greatly appreciated. Dylan Bouterse . Sr. System Engineer ___ p. 352.253.2200 f. 352.742.2211 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] i. http://www.power1.com - www.onepowerfulsolution.com - www.power1golf.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] GPS Recievers
I'm looking for very good GPS receivers. I've used Trimble in the past and found them to be very good, but expensive. That was back in 1998 - 2001. I'd like to get sub-meter accuracy if the price is right. When dealing with mountain tops and ridge lines, 100' off can put you at the bottom of a cliff. Any recommendations? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.
President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about highways and schools when he said, "you didn't create that", The problem lies with that statement itself. They (business owners) did create the highways and schools. Who paid the taxes to build those roads? Who paid the taxes to build those schools? Did business owners get exemptions to not pay for those things? Or did they get taxed at a higher rate because they made more money? As roads are so ubiquitous, and they apparently make business thrive, why do thousands of business fail every year? Are there no roads where they are located? On Jul 31, 2012, at 8:23 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 7/31/2012 09:28 AM, Brad Belton wrote: > >> I think the point of the article is once big government got out of >> the way, private interests (i.e. businesses) ran with the idea and >> it flourished. > > Yes, that was the proopaganda point he was trying to make. But it > was a flat-out lie when applied to the Internet. The government > funded the development of the Internet. The government built and > paid to run the Internet for years, for its own purposes. The > government then let more and more non-governmental users (NSFnet > educational) onto its Internet. All during this time, commercial > internets (small-i) could have been built, and some were, but the > critical mass of widespread connectivity happened when the > government's Internet (big-I) was opened up to the general public, > and government funding then ended. > > Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own > facts. Crovitz made stuff up that was just totally wrong, two > quadrants opposed to the truth. He was no more accurate than > Stalin's propagandists. > > In plain fact, the key move that made any public internet possible > was a regulatory decision made by the FCC in the mid-1970s, the > Sharing and Resale decision. They ordered AT&T and other LECs to > permit private lines to be shared and resold. Before that, a private > line could only be run between a single customers' own sites. A line > to your own customer was only available to licensed common > carriers. A BBNer, Ralph Alter, went out and got FCC approval as the > first packet-switched common carrier, PCI, in 1973. Shortly > afterwards, BBN itself started up Telenet, while Tyment and Graphnet > also got licensed. After the Sharing and Resale decision, becoming > an ISP didn't require a common carrier license. Then 1980's Computer > II decision forced the Bells to sell "basic" services to competitors > if they wanted to offer "enhanced" services. The revocation of that > in 2005 led to the NN kerfuffle and the demise of more wireline ISPs. > > Jeff Broadwick adds, >> Either way, President Obama's statement that the internet was created so >> that "all companies could make money off the Internet" is patently false. > > Well, no. His statement, read in context of the full paragraph, > clearly meant something else entirely. His "so that" was not meant > as "created for the express purpose of", but as its perfectly good > alternative meaning "with the effect that". The ARPANET was created > *not* to survive nuclear war (it was not a Strategic network) but to > permit researchers (at industry and universities, as well as within > the government) to share resources. The more decentralized but still > subsidized Internet evolved in the 1980s. When it was privatized by > the Clinton administration, companies could make then money off of it. > > (I note that the Romney campaign has been playing the selective > editing trick. President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about > highways and schools when he said, "you didn't create that", but by > editing out that reference and stringing other sentences together, he > pretended that Obama told businessmen that they didn't create their > own businesses. You can pretty much make anyone seem to say anything > that way, as Colbert viewers know.) > > -- > Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Goodbye to Whitespace for WISP's uses?
Big telco, the spawn campers of the RF world :-) On Sep 29, 2012, at 10:20 AM, John Thomas wrote: > What is really sad is that they could license lite, for a couple hundred > dollars a year, spectrum to several thousand wisps and end up with the same $ > as selling it to the big boys that would just end up camping on it. > > John > > Doug Clark wrote: > Sorry John, this should have been directed @ Tim. > > > > > ---Original Message--- > > From: Doug Clark > Date: 9/29/2012 7:43:43 AM > To: j...@mvn.net; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Goodbye to Whitespace for WISP's uses? > > John, What delusional world are you living in to think that our government > ever had the publics best interest at heart? I wished it was so, but the > reality is simply > that the government will go down the road making mistake after mistake and > giving in to Large Corporations that support them personally financially. > What is best for the American public is "Z" on the list of almost every > member that is in a position to shape the future and especially last on the > list for this > administration! We will be lucky to have a couple of frequencies with heavy > handed rules in place to use them.. > > > > > ---Original Message--- > > From: John Scrivner > Date: 9/28/2012 8:14:44 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Goodbye to Whitespace for WISP's uses? > > The auctioning of SOME of the TVWS was set in stone by the FCC broadband plan > and I by legislative mandate. There was a push by House Republicans to sell > off ALL the TVWS to the highest bidders, leaving ZERO for unlicensed use. The > Democratic controlled Senate prevailed and held strong to allowing a mix of > incentive auctioned and unlicensed use of the TVWS. Having some beats having > none. > Scriv > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Tim Reichhart wrote: > Hey Guys > > I just seen this article and I just wanted to pass it along: > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57522584-38/fcc-kicks-off-effort-to-reclaim-tv-spectrum-for-wireless/ > > > > Wanted to get your thoughts? > > > > My thoughts is that all mobile carriers will buy all the whitespaces before > we “WISP’s” even get to get play in the whitespaces. > > > > Tim > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Bullets
how are the bullets mounted? If they are attached directly to the antenna, is there any stress on the cat-5? Is there enough slack that wind could cause the cable to swing? On Nov 20, 2012, at 7:45 PM, ~NGL~ wrote: > What are you wrapping the antenna connector or the whole bullet. > My problem is the bullet cracking > NHL > From: Greg Osborn > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:45 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bullets > > I'd say if you are getting water in them, you are doing something wrong. > > We have had at least around 200 of them in the field and if there is ever a > leak it is because of poor workmanship of the field tech. > > Dielectric grease inside. > Wrapped with 3m 33 (so that you can get seal wrap off in the future) > Wrapped with 1" seal wrap. > Wrapped with 3m 33 > > http://www.a1components.com/products/stuf-dielectric-waterproof-grease__sky5012.aspx > > http://www.3m.com/product/information/Scotch-Super-33plus-Vinyl-Electrical-Tape.html > > http://sealwrap.com/ > > > On 11/19/2012 9:22 PM, Zach Mann wrote: >> We poke a hole in the end cap. On the bottom. >> >> On Monday, November 19, 2012, ~NGL~ wrote: >> What is the difference between the bullet2 HP and the BulletM2 ? >> Will they communicate with each other in the same network? >> Do they have the same problem of cracking and letting water in? >> Thanx >> NGLs >> >>If you can read this Thank A Teacher. >> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier! >> >> >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > -- > Thanks > Greg Osborn > Tech Support and Field Service Manager > OnlyInternet.Net > 1.800.363.0989 > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] OT: Proxim 5054
Does anyone know how to default a Proxim 5054 WITHOUT the stock power supply? Basically I need to know what pairs to short out to do a full default. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] OT: Proxim 5054
We have it, the radio is not responding at all. No http access or telnet. On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:04 PM, lakel...@gbcx.net wrote: > I assume you don't have the log in user and password? > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone > > - Reply message - > From: "Dan Petermann" > To: "Ubiquiti Users Group" > Subject: [WISPA] OT: Proxim 5054 > Date: Mon, Dec 10, 2012 8:26 pm > > > Does anyone know how to default a Proxim 5054 WITHOUT the stock power supply? > > Basically I need to know what pairs to short out to do a full default. > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] DMCA infringent notices...
We pass them on. On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Mike Lyon wrote: > Got my first DMCA infringement notice today (yay! Not...) > > Curious to hear what other action WISPs have taken with their > customers when these notices come down. Do you simply pass the notice > to the customer and have them correspond with the accuser or does the > WISP act as an intermediary between rhe accuser and the WISP customer? > > Thanks in advance! > > -mike > > Sent from my iPhone > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Recommendations for Ubiquiti 3.65 site
Use NSM365 with a dish on all but the shortest links. Keep distances short, 4 miles or less. AMQ above 80% TX CCQ above 75% RX level or -70 or better AMQ, TX CCQ, & RX level must ALL be at or above those values. Keep SM counts below 45 or so. Use KP Performance antennas or Ubiquiti antennas with RF Armor shields. Once the above is done, start saving money for the upcoming 3.65 PMP450 (don't hold your breath though) and replace the Ubiquiti gear when it becomes available. On Jul 31, 2013, at 9:01 AM, wrote: > We are putting up a 3.65 GHz system next week to take existing customers off > of an existing Canopy 2.4GHz system. > > Is there anyone who has deployed the 3 Ghz gear from Ubnt and could recommend > which model of CPE and if there anything to know to avoid a steep 'learning > curve' since we have never deployed anything from Ubiquiti until now. > > Suggestions as to the best prices are most welcome too! > > Thanks, > > Daniel > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon–Hartley_theorem Its all in the math. On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote: > But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same. 900 is dirty and > Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal does not die > as quick. I understand the “Theory” but still have a hard time understanding > how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry the same Data as 5800MHz carrier > wave but I know that it could in a vacuum. The issue is we don’t live in a > vacuum. > > Steve Barnes > General Manager > PCSWIN.com > Howard LLC. > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Mike Hammett > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:28 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas > > 900 will move the same amount as data as 2.4, 3.65 and 5 GHz with all else > being the same. > > If your throughput is low, you have too little signal for the noise you're > seeing. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > From: "Sam Tetherow" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:13:52 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas > > I don't have anything to compare it to other than Tranzeo 900, but I have had > decent results with it. It obviously won't push the throughput that 5G or > even 2.4G will, even with the same channel sizes, but UBNT salvaged most of > my 900 customers when the Tranzeo gear started running into problems. > > > On 08/22/2013 09:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz system > was junk had a poor RF environment. > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > From: "Erik Anderson" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas > > 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other > products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better. > Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these > technologies have very low bandwidth. > > On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: > What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both > Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put > up a 130ft tower in a heavily wooded river valley area, leaning towards the > UBNT solution but hate putting money into something I'm not really satisfied > with. > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Mikrotik Omnitik Surge supressors
What are you guys using for surge suppressors for Mikrotik OmniTiks? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box
We do too On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > Me > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:35 AM, timothy steele > wrote: > How many of you are using the tough RJ-45 ends (UBNT) with your shielded > cable? > — > Sent from Mailbox for iPhone > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Jeremy wrote: > We use Shireen shielded for both towers and installs. > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) > wrote: > That says gel filled. the other is a dry “gel”. > > marlon > > > From: Kevin Owen > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box > > Here is the product I ordered after being pointed there by Scott. > > > > > > Outdoor CAT5e FTP Shielded - Gel Filled - Outer Jacket - 1000ft Spool > > DC-1041 > > > > Kevin > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Josh Reynolds > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 10:23 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box > > > > INTERESTING! > > I didn't know shireen made a shielded version. That's one reason we've only > used the d-gel for very certain things. It's not listed on our primary > vendor's site (streakwave). > > Thanks for the find/info! > > Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS > :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: > > On 01/24/2014 08:48 AM, Scott Reed wrote: > > You can get it either way, shielded or not. > Compare them here: https://www.shireeninc.com/osc/cables/cat5e.html > > > On 1/24/2014 12:43 PM, Kevin Owen wrote: > > Marlon, > > > > Is the Shireen Dry Gel cable also shielded? Do you have a part/product # for > it? > > > > Thanks, > > Kevin > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:42 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box > > > > Have you tried the Shireen dry gel? I’m addicted. > > > > Stays dry and easy to work with until it gets wet. IF there’s a problem that > allows liquid into the cable it self seals the hole. Pretty cool stuff. > > > > I do wish they had a better packaging system. I really miss the “rabbit > pull” mechanism that my indoor cable uses. > > > > marlon > > > > > > From: Scott Reed > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 4:31 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] outdoor shielded cable for installs in a box > > > > Shireen, unshield, no gel for installations. > Shireen, shielded, no gel for towers. > > On 1/22/2014 9:20 PM, timothy steele wrote: > > I've used shireen cable I will +1 that's good cable.. I've also heard of guys > making there own reusable spindle holder box so you can use same cable for > towers and installs so there is that option > > — > Sent from Mailbox for iPhone > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > > UBNT toughcable pro/carrier and/or Shireen is all we use > > Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS > :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer :: > > On 01/22/2014 04:30 PM, heith petersen wrote: > > Just looking for what others are using for boxed cable shielded that simple > or easy for customer installs. We use a certain cable now, buts on rolls, > which is ideal for towers, but a pain in the ass for installs. I heard UBNT > stuff is better, but the partners are upset from the BS from earlier go > arounds > > > > thanks > > heith > > > > > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7024 - Release Date: 01/22/14 > > > > > > -- > Scott Reed > Owner > NewWays Networking, LLC > Wireless Networking > Network Design, Installation and Administration > Mikrotik Advanced Certified > www.nwwnet.net > (765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239 > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3681/7030 - Release Date: 01/24/14 > > >
Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
Heck I have a very old 5.2 BH20 extended range (software scheduling) at 7.3 miles with a rx of -76. Its been up since 2003 or 2004 running 7.2.9. On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: > What are you guys talking about? A 30dB dish with a 0dB radio on it will > easily go 4-5 miles. Or put a 34dB dish on with a -4dB radio if you want > more gain. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 17:56, Fred Goldstein wrote: > >> On 2/12/2014 5:23 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: >>> Yea, but the power levels of some are not likely usable in an outdoor WISP >>> environment. >>> A good explanation is at Wikipedia strange enough... >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII >>> >>> People running equipment in frequencies at a power level higher than >>> intended is the issue. Also, the 5470-5725 band requires DFS. >>> >> >> Actually, so does 5.25-5.35, as of 2004 or so. It didn't originally, but >> when they added the 5.47-5.725 band, which needs DFS, they added the >> requirement to the original U-NII-2A band. So >> 15.407(h)(2) Radar Detection Function of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS). >>U-NII devices operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.725 GHz bands >>shall employ a DFS radar detection mechanism to detect the presence of >>radar systems and to avoid co-channel operation with radar systems. >> >> The power level down there is adequate for some applications, like half-mile >> links. Lots of old Motorola PTP-400s are legally pumping +5 to +9 dBm into >> panels... one urban path is working over 2 miles, though we're replacing it. >> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Art Stephens wrote: >>> 5265-5320 >>> 5500-5580 >>> 5660-5700 >>> 5735-5840 >>> >>> Are these not USA channels? >>> If am wrong let me know and I will change them. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller >>> wrote: >>> >>> Forrest...what is your offlist email ? >>> >>> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone >>> >>> - Reply message - >>> From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies? >>> Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM >>> >>> >>> I'm going to agree with others... >>> >>> Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it sounds >>> like you are definitely running outside the limits since you are whining >>> about the ability to run your radios in a mode which seems to have no use >>> than to exceed the limits. >>> >>> I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than they >>> should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self inflicted. My >>> experience over the years is that radios are designed to run at a specific >>> tx power and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel bleed >>> over. Even if the radios don't do this you are introducing far more rf >>> than is likely needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor. >>> >>> Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly. We've just all either >>> dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an operator like you >>> are now. And right now we're trying to gain credibility with the FCC which >>> is hard to do when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. Which >>> makes us a bit grumpy. >>> >>> I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you better >>> understand what you are doing to yourself and help you improve your >>> operations which will in turn improve your quality of service. Heck, I'd >>> drive over there for a weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed. >>> >>> In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us help you >>> reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating network. >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" wrote: >>> Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out of >>> these frequencies. >>> Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that >>> platform. >>> First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for about >>> 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 5735 - 5840 >>> runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area, >>> Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840. >>> Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess with >>> it. >>> Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA. >>> Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports >>> 5170-5875. >>> >>> Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes more >>> money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for both >>> wisps and consumers. >>> >>> -- >>> Arthur Stephens >>> Senior Networking Technician >>> Ptera Inc. >>> PO Box 135 >>> 24001 E Mission Suite 50 >>> Liberty Lake, WA 99019 >>> 509-927-7837 >>> ptera.com >>> facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera
Re: [WISPA] magnetic sector panel mount
http://www.metal-cable.com/page13.html I think they are around 2K/square. On Apr 1, 2014, at 2:34 PM, l...@mwtcorp.net wrote: > Hi all, > > I am looking for a magnetic mount that can be used on a sector panel for > use on a municipal metal water tank. The sector panels will be for ubiquity. > Sector panel model not chosen yet. The catch 22 is that we experience > high winds. We have sustained winds of 40-60 mph with occasional gusts in > the 70-80 mph range on a few days each year. (like 30 or 40) > > Anybody know of something that is strong enough to work? > > > Any info or experience is appreciated. Thanks. > > > Larry Ash > Network Administrator > Mountain West Telephone > 123 W 1st St. > Casper, WY 82601 > Office 307 233-8387 > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] magnetic sector panel mount
its 15K for a set of 4 squares. On Apr 1, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Dan Petermann wrote: > http://www.metal-cable.com/page13.html > > > I think they are around 2K/square. > > > On Apr 1, 2014, at 2:34 PM, l...@mwtcorp.net wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am looking for a magnetic mount that can be used on a sector panel for >> use on a municipal metal water tank. The sector panels will be for ubiquity. >> Sector panel model not chosen yet. The catch 22 is that we experience >> high winds. We have sustained winds of 40-60 mph with occasional gusts in >> the 70-80 mph range on a few days each year. (like 30 or 40) >> >> Anybody know of something that is strong enough to work? >> >> >> Any info or experience is appreciated. Thanks. >> >> >> Larry Ash >> Network Administrator >> Mountain West Telephone >> 123 W 1st St. >> Casper, WY 82601 >> Office 307 233-8387 >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
"For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi” What is the assumed transmitter power? 30dBm? On Apr 15, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: > On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> Excellent Summry. Can you clarify. >> >> In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar to >> 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could transmit >> at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was >> increased >> via antenna gain. Does that still apply for the new UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz >> rules? > > Under the old "ISM" rules for 5725-5850, there was no EIRP limit for > point to point: > > (ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used >exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ >transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without >any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power. > > Under the ISM rules for 2400-2483.5 MHz, there is a 1 for 3 rule, so you > can keep 2/3 of the EIRP above +36 that comes from antenna gain: > > (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used >exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ >transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided >the maximum conducted output power of the intentional radiator is >reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna >exceeds 6 dBi. > > > Under the old U-NII rules for 5725-5825, there was an EIRP limit on > point to point that was higher than the +36 dBm limit for point to > multipoint. > > For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters >that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB >reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for >each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required. > > So the old EIRP point to point limit under U-NII was +53 dBm. The FCC > proposed making that the new unified rule, but -- WISPA and members to > the rescue! -- ended up adopting the ISM "no EIRP limit" instead. Get > those Rocket dishes out... but only above 5725. > > > (BTW, "ISM" refers to Part 18 RF heaters. 15.247 is the unlicensed > intentional radiators using bands where ISM is the primary user of the > frequency, hence the nickname.) > >> I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new >> outdoor >> use of Unii 5.1 Ghz. > > Correct. The 5150-5250 U-NII-1 segment inherits the old U-NII-3 rule > that everybody got around via the ISM rule (boy is that confusing), > capping EIRP at +53. The new 5150-5250 fixed rule: > > For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna > gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output > power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of > antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi. > >> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Fred Goldstein" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM >>> Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands >>> >>> On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 14-30) in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules. The actual R&O text was released later in the week. For the most part, it came out well for WISPs. Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been opened to outdoor use. Note that this was not the final word on 13-49. It focused on the U-NII-1 band (5150-5250) and U-NII-3 band (5725-5825). The proposed new U-NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands were not addressed. Those are more controversial and await a later R&O. Key changes that were announced: The 5725-5850 ISM band (Rules Part 15.247) was essentially merged with U-NII-3 (15.407). The upper band edge of U-NII-3 was moved from 5825 to 5850 to match ISM. Wideband digital operation was removed from ISM, limiting 15.247 operation on that band to frequency hopping spread spectrum (narrowband) and the FH portion of hybrid devices. As of one year after publication in the Federal Register, no new 15.247 wideband devices will be type-approved for that band, and sale and importation must stop in two years. Existing devices may continue to be used. The WISP community did dodge a bullet here, as the new U-NII-3 rules are closer to the ISM rules than to the old U-NII rules. In particular, the proposal to limit EIRP of fixed point-to-point links to +53 dBm, the old U-NII-3 limit which did not apply to ISM, was not adopted. Fixed point-to-point U-NII-3 operation
Re: [WISPA] Motorola Canopy 2.4
I use canopy gear at 5.7 and problems are very minimal. Most of the time (99%) it's a set and forget system. Most of our customers on canopy we never hear from again, it's that stable. We are just deploying 2.4 canopy gear so can't really speak to how well they deal with that band. The vast majority of our trouble tickets come from our 2.4 gear (smartbridges). We are looking at replacing our 2.4 APs with Mikrotiks, mostly for the bandwidth control and routing capabilities. As far as speeds go, I can pull about 3 meg at my house. That link is behind a 22 mile Canopy BH that has about 150 other users, then to another 3 mile Canopy BH that has another 450 users (600+ total end users). We probably could use faster BH radios, but then the fastest speeds we offer is 2.8Mb. Very stable gear, has had some issues but nothing major. If fact, I just designed a 900+ user wireless system for a huge corp. and I'm in the process of designing another one for them of the same size. I wish I could say who it is but am under a NDA. On Sep 12, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Bo Hamilton wrote: Hello everyone! I here alot of talk about MT, Star-os, Tranzeo ect. but I don't here much about Motorola Canopy. I was wondering what is everyones view on this gear. Thanks in advance Bo -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need Inputs From Hurricane ReliefWISPTeamsForFCCPresentation on Thursday
AMEN and thank you. On Sep 14, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: That's enough. All of you. I've tried before to shut down these types of threads. No knock it off. We're (officially) working with p15. If you don't like it, take it up with the board. Arguments about who's daddy is bigger have no place on a public list at this time. IF the time comes to look back on things and point fingers I'll be first in line. For now though, I don't give a rats ass who gets credit. I want to see those who've got NOTHING left. Now home, no job, no food, no family etc. taken care of. No more talk about who's taking the lime light. No more talk about how the entities are structured. No more back biting. You guys talk about what can be done to make things better, make people's networks run better, argue about who's got the best gear out there or whatever, but this push and pull between p15 and wispa stops now. I don't have the power to get people booted from this list, but if folks don't start contributing instead of putting others down I'll make a motion at the board level to have a few people (even though some of you are my friends) banned for a cooling off time. have a great day, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Licensed band radio manufacturers
Anybody know if there is a list somewhere that lists equipment manufacturers besides typing in every search keyword I can think of into Google? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed band radio manufacturers
Looking for licensed band, 100Mb, full duplex radios. The reason is I'm looking at 100+ air miles and want to have as few hops as possible, with no interference.Thank you for your reply and I'll have to check out your products.On Oct 20, 2005, at 7:24 AM, robert maier wrote:I'am a radio manufacturer out of Bradenton Florida, We make 2.4 and 5.8 ghz 11 meg spread spectrum radios, plus we have a new generation radio coming out soon that will go up to 54 meg. These radios can either be outdoor mount or indoor mount. The out door are power over ethernet. Point to point, Point to multipoint, DHCP,NAT,Routing, these radios do it all and they are very reliable. Have many links out ther for over 8 years with no problems. Give a call or visit our website Rob Maier Director of Field Services 1-941-744-2511 Global Wireless Solutions and Technologies www.globalwireless-inc.com Dan Petermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anybody know if there is a list somewhere that lists equipment manufacturers besides typing in every search keyword I can think of into Google?-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Networks Reveals Prototype902-928MHzMini-PCICard
I have to agree. I've got a Canopy system running a horizontal omni with a noise floor of -63dB at the AP. Longest links are 30+ miles, average length is around 20. This is a mobile setup, longest link on it has been at 57.6 miles, stable enough to run vpn over it. The Canopy & Last Mile Gear engineers were amazed that it worked at all, let alone at over 50 miles. Granted the terrain supports such long links, but I am very impressed. On Oct 23, 2005, at 8:54 PM, JohnnyO wrote: Hate to say it Dan, BUT - Trango and Atheros get's it's ass kicked by Canopy - Canopy is the ONLY 900mhz Platform that will work for us in a -55 to -60 noise floor situation - so hopefully - you live In the perfect world and can run "noise/interference" free :) JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danlist Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:51 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Networks Reveals Prototype902-928MHzMini-PCICard This is awesome, I knew this was coming, ideally once it works with MT with adjustable channel width (ie: 5mhz or 10mhz) - you should be able to push some serious throughput on that 5mhz channel compared to the existing Trango & Canopy 900mhz systems Hopefully the pricing on the radio is the same as the sr2/sr5 Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Smith Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:25 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Networks Reveals Prototype 902-928MHzMini- PCICard Omfg. That's awesome. Since it's standard Atheros, wonder what the chances of getting it integrated into Mikrotik quickly are ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 4:37 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Networks Reveals Prototype 902-928 MHzMini- PCICard Brian Just and FYI Demarc has know about this for some time and as soon as its ready to go we will have CPE and base units that will support it. The CPE will come with 10dBi or 12dBi options as well as the 250mW or 1 Watt output options. While not locked down we should be able to do 4, 2 or 1 OFDM non overlapping channels which can be used for either CPE or backhaul designs. The units will also have polling to get the most out of the 900Mhz band. Also pricing is not set but we are sure it will be less then anything on the market today with more options, we will have to wait and see :) Sincerely, Tony Morella Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider Office: 207-244-9068 Fax: 207-433-1008 http://www.demarctech.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 7:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Networks Reveals Prototype 902-928 MHz Mini-PCICard http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14626823 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005 -- 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 incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Fw: [off-list] Tracking Signal / Noise / Resends / Etc.]
I have dealt with Mr. Comroe and his software in the past and he is a very helpful gentleman. I no longer use it, but that is not due to any problems with him or his software. It was for monitoring canopy radios and Moto made changes to the radio firmware that broke compatibility. I don't think he had any intention to spam. I say give him a second chance. On Nov 3, 2005, at 3:28 PM, John Scrivner wrote: I am forwarding this message to the group because this individual is not trying to spam us and is actually benefiting us I think. I am sorry if any of you think this is spam. He did not ask me to forward it onto the list. I feel it is good information and should be shared with the group. I will likely call on him for some assistance myself to see if I can streamline some of my wireless system monitoring and housekeeping tasks. Thank you Rich, Scriv Original Message Subject:Fw: [off-list] Tracking Signal / Noise / Resends / Etc. Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:49:43 -0600 From: rcomroe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On-List I gave you some useful pointers about monitoring methods / tools. Off-list, I'd encourage you to look at www.comroestudios.com. I'm pretty small, and just provide tools to wisps at a fraction of what than the larger companies charge. But I know what you're looking for and try to provide that to wisps. If you're interested I could help you out. As far as a vendor membership to WISPA, what's it cost? I sell only a tiny amount of product as a retirement hobby. But if you see what you need, I'd could be persuaded to become a member if it turned out to be mutually advantageous to WISPA as well as I. I poll about 18 parameters from each radio every 5 minutes or so. Most are retained in a history file that I can look back through, or graph any time interval. Others are strip-charted so multiple charts can be viewed on a web page like MRTG. Beyond just viewing or logging performance, the other thing a WISP really needs is a tool that can script instructions and actions to automate functions ... network management is more than just "viewing / reviewing" performance. Most of the WISPs that use my tool operate Canopy, where the device has snmp and web based interfaces (but the snmp interface in Canopy doesn't really work properly). Therefore some scripts interact by http while most of the continuous polling is done by snmp. Just about any action can be automated by a script and operators typically can automate actions that cycle through all radios performing reconfigurations, searching bridge tables, or anything. Rich - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 11:32 AM Subject: [WISPA] Tracking Signal / Noise / Resends / Etc. I am starting to feel the pains of trying to accurately trace problems in a network that is getting increasingly larger all the time. We have roughly 20 tower locations now. We have a pretty good picture of what we are getting for bandwidth use through our MRTG graphs. We can see when any link completely drops thanks to our What's Up monitoring. We can easily track and isolate peer to peer abuse and such with traffic analysis tools in Star OS and Mikrotik as needed. What we need though is a way to track the other parameters of our network over time. It would be invaluable to me to be able to look over historical records from a hour long window up to a year long window for link integrity information. What I mean is this. I would like to see how a signal level, noise level, number of retransmits, etc. changes over time in a graph format like MRTG does with bits in and out. It would be nice to add other parameters as needed. I know SNMP is supposed to be able to do this but I do not have the slightest bit of experience using that. Is there anyone out there who knows an easy way of getting a rudimentary level of understanding about using SNMP to extract data such as this? Maybe someone has a package they use that provides this information on your network? If any WISPs out there have any answers to this please respond on this list. If you are a vendor and your product can do specifically what I am asking for above then I am sure we would like to hear about that too. Maybe if a few of us buy your products you will consider buying a vendor membership to WISPA also.:-) Thanks guys, Scriv -- -- -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wisp
Re: [WISPA] Atheros speed WRAP vs RB532
For the profile, I use RadioMobile and export the path to a text file. I then put the first 2 columns into the second tab on the spreadsheet. Works great. On Nov 13, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Dylan Oliver wrote: Paul, I haven't tried the Spectra yet but am planning some links with the Link Estimator. Are you familiar with this tool? You may have to attend a training session to get access to the partner site and profile generator. However I'd be happy to generate a path report for you .. the tool is quite good, and at least the sales people will tell you it's very accurate - if it says 99.999% reliability, that's what you'll get. Trees and other obstructions can be added to the profile manually. The single biggest factor is antenna gain .. you just won't get 200 Mbps over 40 km without 4' dishes on both sides. Best, -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Wireless interference study
Anybody have links on how to perform a wireless interference study? I've got to do one and I'm a bit rusty. Looking for some tips. I've got a spectrum analyzer and antennas for the appropriate bands. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Pathloss users.....
If anyone out there is using Pathloss, do you have the .raf, .mas, .mrs or .dat files for Canopy radios (or any other wisp type radios)? If anyone has them, I'd sure appreciate it if you could send them my way. Coding them by hand is a huge P.I.T.A. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: [WISP] Renting Spectrum Analyzers
If you are going to climb with it, then look for something like this one: http://www.us.anritsu.com/products/ARO/North/Eng/showProd.aspx? ID=654&cat=1&cat2=2&cat3=3&cat4=0 We just got one last month or so. Works fantastic! On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Well, I would want to climb with them. Elevator legs, not towers. That is why I am asking here. Point me to a good one. I haven't a clue. Jenco Wireless wrote: Wow. For the rental price on some of those you can buy one from BVS Systems. I rented one (I can't remember the name but it was an expensive unit) for $250 per week from Wave Rider. If I remember right (it has been a while), it at least covered 900 and 2.4. You should probably have some antennas of your own ready to go for testing when you get the unit. It is a big and expensive unit, so don't plan on carrying it up a tower ! Brad Hagstrom Jenco Wireless On 1/5/06, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone in love with one of these? http://www.metrictest.com/catalog/views/rental_specials.jsp? searchTerm=Spectrum%20Analyzers Brian Rohrbacher wrote: Can I get one that does 900, 2.4, and 5 gig? Who has them and how much to rent for 2 weeks to a month? -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 "Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Brian Rohrbacher Reliable Internet, LLC www.reliableinter.net Cell 269-838-8338 "Caught up in the Air" 1 Thess. 4:17 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] FWD New low cost options from Motorola
Not sure on the 900's as we just put them in the field, but on 5.7 I've got over 100 on a single AP.On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:13 AM, chris cooper wrote: How many CPE can be supported per single base station? I’ve heard some pretty chilling reports from someone that had themin production. He may not have known what to do with them however. chris Subject: [WISPA] FWD New low cost options from Motorola Thoughts on this? I sure think I could hook up subs all day long for the price of these 900 CPEs. 512 is plenty for us folks out in the sticks. Sure is better than the 14-20k dialup most people get. Brian-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] soldering radio's
Not to mention the warranty... :-)On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Making that modification would likely take the radios out of certification. Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Kurt Fankhauser To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: [WISPA] soldering radio'sAnyone here have experience soldering connectors on to Motorola Canopy radio’s? I’d like to start doing my own soldering and can’t figure out where to solder the center conductor and grounds for these. There are 3 points where the integrated antenna attaches to the PCB and I’m pretty sure that the top solder point is the center conductor but I don’t know if the other two are for the ground or what. Kurt FankhauserWAVELINC114 S. Walnut St.Bucyrus, OH 44820419-562-6405www.wavelinc.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/-- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: Was - [WISPA] service contract prices - What is moto doing?
What are they doing at the FCC??Can you point me to a few links or otherwise enlighten me?On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I know I work with EC. And I know people like Canopy. I know I'm only supposed to say nice things. But Motorola is STILL working hard at the FCC level to hamstring this industry. I'll not support them unless there are no other choices. I won't even use a moto cell phone at this point, I'm so discussed with what they've been doing at the FCC. Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: G.Villarini To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] service contract prices1 suggestion, Last Mile Gear Canopy Advantage Omni Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.aeronetpr.com787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:17 PMTo: WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] service contract prices Need coverage in 3 different directions. And trango ap's only come with 60* sectors. Plus, they'll likely put in some video surveillance and that will need lots of capacity so we're heading off any likely bw issues. Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: G.Villarini To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:05 AMSubject: RE: [WISPA] service contract prices Why 3 APs ? Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.aeronetpr.com787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:03 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General ListSubject: Re: [WISPA] service contract prices Hiya Johnny, This is a casino. The security and reliability requirements rule out any 802.11 type gear. Marlon(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!64.146.146.12 (net meeting)www.odessaoffice.com/wirelesswww.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: JohnnyO To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] service contract prices I would strongly suggest looking at Mikrotik for the following reasons.#1 - Pricing - very inexpensive to maintain and swap out equipment in the event of a failure#2 - You can provide them up to 36meg connectivity for the same pricing anyone can offer then 10megs#3 - Ease of replacementsYou can also provide them Wi-Fi connectivity with a MT Based system for laptops in between the properties if they desire. The reason I suggest MT is the amount of flexibility and options you can tack are are far superior to any proprietory solution out there you can get your hands on. JohnnyOOn Fri, 2006-02-10 at 09:57 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, I've been asked to provide a network for a complex of buildings. They like the ease of deployment and flexibility of a Trango based network. I'll lock them into a 3 year contract that will match the time frame I'll need for a bank loan for the hardware. I'll need to put in 3 ap's and 4 cpe units. As well as battery backup units all installation work etc. Additional cpe is possible but not guaranteed in the future. My question is, what do I charge for this? I can handle the monthly part but I've never put a service contract on a wlan before. Used to do it in my copier days all the time so I understand the concept. Just need some help with the numbers. The site is about 1.5 hours from me, and that far from anyone else that knows anything about anything too. I believe that the contract price should be tied to cpe deployed. Too low and any repair work, device failures etc. will kill me. Too high and I'll loose the deal. What's standard in the industry? As I'll be using Trango I'll hopefully be giving them 8 to 9 megs of throughput (all sites are within 1/8th of a mile) from buildi
Re: Was - [WISPA] service contract prices - What is moto doing?
Ok, Thanks.I use to work for a large corp., they seem to like to shoot their own feet off.On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:24 PM, G.Villarini wrote: The Cellular Sector is pushing for licensing the 3.65 band… You got to understand that MOTO is huge organization not like other Manufacturers. And The Cellular Division is pushing for licensing the 3.65 band so they can sell more BTS to the Cell operators….AFAIK, the Canopy group has nothing to do with this since they are on another Division… Sometimes your right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing …Not the case with smaller guys like Trango, which only serve a handful of markets Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.[EMAIL PROTECTED]www.aeronetpr.com787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Petermann Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:16 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: Was - [WISPA] service contract prices - What is moto doing? What are they doing at the FCC?? Can you point me to a few links or otherwise enlighten me? On Feb 10, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:I know I work with EC. And I know people like Canopy. I know I'm only supposed to say nice things. But Motorola is STILL working hard at the FCC level to hamstring this industry. I'll not support them unless there are no other choices. I won't even use a moto cell phone at this point, I'm so discussed with what they've been doing at the FCC. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: G.Villarini To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:19 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] service contract prices 1 suggestion, Last Mile Gear Canopy Advantage Omni Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] service contract prices Need coverage in 3 different directions. And trango ap's only come with 60* sectors. Plus, they'll likely put in some video surveillance and that will need lots of capacity so we're heading off any likely bw issues. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam- Original Message - From: G.Villarini To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:05 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] service contract prices Why 3 APs ? Gino A. Villarini, Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.aeronetpr.com 787.273.4143 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] service contract prices Hiya Johnny, This is a casino. The security and reliability requirements rule out any 802.11 type gear. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam- Original Message - From: JohnnyO To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:42 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] service contract prices I would strongly suggest looking at Mikrotik for the following reasons. #1 - Pricing - very inexpensive to maintain and swap out equipment in the event of a failure #2 - You can provide them up to 36meg connectivity for the same pricing anyone can offer then 10megs #3 - Ease of replacements You can also provide them Wi-Fi connectivity with a MT Based system for laptops in between the properties if they desire. The reason I suggest MT is the amount of flexibility and options you can tack are are far superior to any proprietory solution out there you can get your hands on. JohnnyO On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 09:57 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, I've been asked to provide a network for a complex of buildings. They like the ease of deployment and flexibility of a Trango based network. I'll lock them into a 3 year contract that will match the time frame I'll need for a bank loan for the hardware. I'll need to put in 3 ap's and 4 cpe units. As well as battery backup units all installation work etc. Additional cpe is possible but not guaranteed in the future. My question is, what do I charge for this? I can handle the monthly part but I've never put a service contract on a wlan before. Used to do it in my copier days al
Re: [WISPA] FM Radio interference
I’ve used ferrite beads designed for the FM frequency in use and placed them at 1/4 wave intervals on the ethernet (shielded). We haven’t had a problem since, but the run is fairly short. On Jul 14, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: > I have an existing tower that has a FM transmitter on it. I believe they are > just under 10,000 Watts. > Since we have been one that tower, I could never link up Ethernet that runs > up the tower to the equipment on the bottom at 100BT. I've tried ferrite > rings on both ends, all cables are shielded and grounded. Always had to go > to 10BT to get a link. > > I moved our radios 35 feet away from the bottom their antennas and still > cannot link at 100BT. > > The new radios require 1000BT too use them to full advantage. Ideas? > > I'm considering conduit all the way up the tower. I don't want to put > switches at the top. > > > > -- > Marco C. Coelho > Argon Technologies Inc. > POB 875 > Greenville, TX 75403-0875 > 903-455-5036 > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Need a ~60ft pole to mount a 2ft dish on
http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/product_details.aspx?id=49277 On Sep 7, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: > Whats the best option? > > Thanks > > Scott Carullo > Technical Operations > Florida High Speed Internet > (321) 205-1100 x102 > > > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] What would you use a drone for?
To use one commercially you will need to have a UAV license from the FAA. It takes about a month of studying and $150.00 for the test. Fines are very high, especially as the FAA is looking to make examples of people to discourage breaking the law. Even recreational use requires the drone to be registered with the FAA, unless it weighs less than 1/2 a pound. No flights are authorize within 5 miles of an airport unless you get tower permission first. There are a myriad of rules that people are breaking every day. Flights within a TFR could result in prison time. I got my license last month. On Apr 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, David Jones wrote: > Good day, I am trying to list out all the uses for a drone to justify buying > one. > > Here are a few that I have come up with: > > 1. New tower site surveys. we are running into areas that our standard 45' > tower will not cut it. (I know its short but hey we have elevation changes > from 7200' to 8600' in less than 3 miles.) a drone could be used to determine > how high a tower needs to be to get the best coverage. > > 2. Tower maintenance. We have a water tower that we are on that is no longer > in use nor maintained. The top ladder is about to fall off and we need to get > it repaired. A drone can take the needed pictures from the top to help us > determine what parts/bolts/welder we need to fix it. That would save a trip > with an 80' bucket truck so we only will need it once. > > What else can anyone think of for use of a drone? What would justify the cost > to make it clearly a tool and not a toy? > > -- > David Jones > NGL Connection > 307-288-5491 ext 702 > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
