Re: [WISPA] OFF LIST Predictive placement and heat mapping software OFF LIST

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Freudian slip.! :) . I for one found it educational. 

Is there a place one can see these 5g maps easily for an area ? 

Thanks. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Brian Webster" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:44:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OFF LIST Predictive placement and heat mapping software 
> OFF
> LIST

> Crap and you have to remember to change the address. Apologies to the list…….

> Thank You,

> Brian Webster

> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
> Of Brian Webster
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 10:30 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OFF LIST Predictive placement and heat mapping software 
> OFF
> LIST

> Bryan,

> Since they get touchy if we self-promote our own solutions on the list I am
> sending this to you off list. Here is a blog I published two weeks ago talking
> about a solution I have developed that may addresses your question if you are
> looking for placement based on need. For other RF predictions there are a few
> solutions. 3D RF modeling cuts down your options, actual field survey data and
> post modeling can also be done in quite a few ways but Ekahu seems to have a
> popular solution for in building surveying and coverage mapping. Are you
> looking for indoor or outdoor solutions? Feel free to call and discuss in
> detail if you want.

> https://brianwebsterconsulting.wordpress.com/2018/07/12/where-will-the-5g-networks-be-built-carriers-are-not-the-only-ones-who-know/

> Thank You,

> Brian Webster

> 214 Eggleston Hill Rd.

> Cooperstown, NY 13326

> (607) 643-4055 Office

> (607) 435-3988 Mobile

> (208) 692-1898 Fax
> Skype: Radiowebst

> www.wirelessmapping.com

> www.Broadband-Mapping.com

> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
> Of Bryan Brooks
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 3:29 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: [WISPA] Predictive placement and heat mapping software

> What are folks using these days for predictive wifi heatmapping (preferably 
> 3D)
> and post- install wifi heatmapping?

> Regards,

> Bryan

> Bryan Brooks

> Pavlov Media

> 217-530-1946

> ___
> 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] SIP Cordless phones

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Cordless Dect phones (SIP/IP Phones) 
Have come long ways.

Aastra
Panasonic
Yealink

They all work fine, as advertised.

:)

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Jeremy Austin" 
> To: "df...@globalvision.net" 
> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 7:51:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] SIP Cordless phones

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:47 PM David Funderburk  
> wrote:
>>
>> We have  a small accounting firm that wants a mixture of desk phones and
>> cordless phones. The older people are used to desk phones and want to keep it
>> that way.  The younger employees prefer cordless so they can move around the
>> office while talking to clients. Both want to have features such as call
>> transfer, park, etc on their phones.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> If you're using a SIP cordless, features will be activated via DTMF
> (and out-of-band signaling). If you're using a PBX that calls cell #s,
> or softphones... features will be activated via DTMF.
> 
> If you want to go super fancy, there are DECT cell systems that allow
> full roaming within the coverage area. I have run Aastra, haven't
> tried Panasonic's system. We ran into weird issues like not being able
> to dial zero, and phones that were many years behind state of the art.
> 
> From the perspective of the younger employees, a SIP phone is just a
> cell phone that's broken because it can't run apps.
> 
> And if you want Bluetooth + mobile, be prepared to pay $300+ per handset.
> 
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On 2018/06/29 17:09, Jeremy Austin wrote:
>>
>> By cellular I also include VoWifi.
>>
>> I'm having a hard time seeing the general use case for SIP rather than
>> VoWifi. At present, largely what we get is presence notification — SIP
>> busy status.
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 12:45 PM Grand Avenue Broadband
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 29, 2018, at 1:34 PM, Jeremy Austin  wrote:
>>
>> What's the use case that you'd prefer SIP over cellular, FWIW?
>>
>>
>> Coverage holes where you've done some work to feed signal in but the cell 
>> boys
>> haven't...
>>
>> --
>>   Grand Avenue Broadband -- Wireless Internet Service
>>  Circle City to Wickenburg and surrounding areas
>>   http://grandavebb.com
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
> 
> 
> --
> Jeremy Austin
> jhaus...@gmail.com
> 
> (907) 895-2311 office
> (907) 803-5422 cell
> 
> Heritage NetWorks - Whitestone Power & Communications - Vertical Broadband, 
> LLC
> ___
> 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] 900MHz band

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>>> Isn't the device FCC certified? 

That is no a valid 'defense' when it comes to tracking down the source of 
interference. 
It is a position that helps in deflecting potential liability, which the 2nd 
phase of the 'let's find who is messing with the spectrum process' . 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 3:59:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz band

> Isn't the device FCC certified?

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

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Steve Barnes < st...@pcswin.com > wrote:

>> We had an issue this week where we had a Power company have a 50K licensed 
>> band
>> at 901.152 Mhz for power meter reading. We have still a few older links that
>> are 900MHz on Yagi’s to individuals in deep woods. I had to move channels all
>> over the place as a 902-912MHz 10Mhz channel with UBNT does not have edge
>> filters that don’t pollute down to 901MHz. So moving to the middle of the 
>> band
>> cleaned up the noise on their license.

>> Now they are claiming that 10MHz channel width in the 900MHz ISM band is
>> Illegal. That the channel width is to be no larger than 8MHz. I have read all
>> kinds of ISM docs from the FCC and I see no mention of max channel widths. 
>> They
>> made mention of talking to the FCC if we didn’t fix the issue.

>> Proof they are wrong any one? This is a national company with a $10K Anritsu
>> analyzer they hired in to find the noise.

>> Steve Barnes

>> Wireless Operations Manager

>> New Lisbon Broadband

>> NLBC.COM

>> PCSWIN.COM

>> 765-584-2288 ext:1101

>> ___
>> 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] Fwd: MDU Ethernet over Coax recommendations

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Have you considered doing G.Fast on the copper phone lines going to each unit ? 
That might be a better alternative. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
http://www.snappytelecom.net 

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Dan Harling" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 9:50:05 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Fwd: MDU Ethernet over Coax recommendations

> Hello,

> We're setting up service in an MDU that has coax home-runs to each unit, but 
> no
> Ethernet. Normally in such situations, we deliver internet access wirelessly
> via access points in the hallways. Increasingly, however, interference and
> bandwidth expectations are making this solution less effective.

> So, we're looking for recommendations for an Ethernet-over-Coax solution. It
> absolutely must inject onto a cable already carrying broadcast TV signals. 
> We'd
> prefer a simple point-to-point solution, rather than a hub that simulates a
> switch, so that security between subscribers isn't based on firmware that was
> designed for (say) security cameras.

> I see inexpensive devices along these lines that are designed for Cable or
> Satellite TV signals, but no indication whether they would clobber broadcast 
> TV
> signals. Any suggestions?

> Daniel Harling <><
> Engineering, Cape Ann Communications
> 183 Main Street, Gloucester, MA 01930
> harl...@capeanncomm.com

> ___
> 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] PSA: BGP broke 650k routes

[Faisal Imtiaz]

hmmm not a good ideal on setting up prefix limit on your Full Table IP 
Transit BGP Connections.. 
setting prefix limits on your Peering BGP connections is an excellent idea. 
Using ACL Filters to explicitly accept prefixes from your down-stream, and what 
you advertise to your upstream is best practices. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> To: a...@afmug.com, "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 7:26:00 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] PSA: BGP broke 650k routes

> I'm not sure where the 650k max-prefix-limit came from - consultant or I 
> thought
> it was plentiful - but both of my peers just hit 650.6k and 651.2k routes 
> which
> caused all kinds of fun this morning.

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

> ___
> 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] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Context context context ... 

do you know who much Freq is in 4.9 you are talking about ?   :)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Keefe John" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:46:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 
> 101 spectrum

> We should open up the 4.9 band.  Hardly  gov't agencies use it.
> 
> Keefe
> 
> 
> On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system
>> planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion.  The coordination from the SAS
>> would protect existing users and links.  I would expect to see a professional
>> installer requirement similar to CBRS rules.   Part 101 is a small part of 
>> the
>> potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200.   There are plenty of
>> other users that would need to be protected as well.  Whatever happens here
>> isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum.
>>
>> My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space.   There are 
>> other
>> frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS type of
>> system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, but they 
>> all
>> have some form of incumbent.  The TV Whitespace rules are largely useless
>> because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the rules make it very
>> difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be shutting down
>> anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be supporting
>> proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways to reach
>> customers.
>>
>> Mark Radabaugh
>> Amplex
>> 22690 Pemberville Rd
>> Luckey, OH 43447
>> 419-261-5996
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote:
>>>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have
>>>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care?
>>>
>>> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band
>>> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links.
>>>
>>> ~Seth
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Faisal Imtiaz]

You have my vote of yes, proceed with cautious optimism 

Hopefully others will chime in with their thoughts as well. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, June 3, 2017 10:52:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part
> 101 spectrum

> Faisel,

> Thanks for the input. An industry group (who wishes to remain anonymous at 
> this
> point) approached WISPA to see if we would be an opponent of this proposal
> since we are essentially the incumbents in the 6Ghz Part 101 space, or a
> supporter.

> My thought is that we have far more to gain from supporting the (admittedly
> incomplete) proposal by obtaining far more PTMP spectrum than we lose. I would
> like to respond on behalf of WISPA with enthusiastic support for the idea but 
> I
> want to get a feel from the membership before endorsing the concept.

> Mark

>> On Jun 3, 2017, at 5:19 AM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:
>> This can be rather interesting

>> My personal opinion is that the current part 101 is very 'wasteful' of 
>> spectrum,
>> due to how the links are coordinated, while it is completely understandable
>> that the part 101 rules favor the license holder in protecting their links.

>> I would be very much interested in knowing the exact functioning on the
>> mechanism to protect the current PTP license holder. The ability to use the
>> rest of un-used spectrum for PTMP at such sites would be very much welcomed
>> relief for severely disadvantaged areas such as South Florida, (no 3.65 due 
>> to
>> earth stations, no extended 5x due to coastal radar etc etc)..

>> Regards.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net >
>>> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
>>> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:01:57 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz 
>>> Part
>>> 101 spectrum

>>> There is 1325 Mhz of spectrum potentially available between 5925 to 7250Mhz.
>>> Existing 6GHz PTP links would need to be protected, as well as satellite 
>>> links,
>>> and some federal users.

>>> Mark

>>>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this.

>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>>>> The Brothers WISP

>>>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net >
>>>> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM
>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 
>>>> 101
>>>> spectrum

>>>> WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore
>>>> unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum. The idea is to 
>>>> increase
>>>> the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, along 
>>>> with
>>>> additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, database) to
>>>> protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than PTP) this 
>>>> would
>>>> not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler 
>>>> to
>>>> implement.

>>>> The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high
>>>> power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of 
>>>> geographic
>>>> exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in exchange for
>>>> greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over time.

>>>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the 
>>>> membership
>>>> and for those who use them if there would be significant opposition to 
>>>> using
>>>> the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.

>>>> Mark

>>>> Mark Radabaugh
>>>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
&

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Faisal Imtiaz]

This can be rather interesting 

My personal opinion is that the current part 101 is very 'wasteful' of 
spectrum, due to how the links are coordinated, while it is completely 
understandable that the part 101 rules favor the license holder in protecting 
their links. 

I would be very much interested in knowing the exact functioning on the 
mechanism to protect the current PTP license holder. The ability to use the 
rest of un-used spectrum for PTMP at such sites would be very much welcomed 
relief for severely disadvantaged areas such as South Florida, (no 3.65 due to 
earth stations, no extended 5x due to coastal radar etc etc).. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 6:01:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part
> 101 spectrum

> There is 1325 Mhz of spectrum potentially available between 5925 to 7250Mhz.
> Existing 6GHz PTP links would need to be protected, as well as satellite 
> links,
> and some federal users.

> Mark

>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 5:23 PM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote:
>> I can't imagine there's enough spectrum to do this.

>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions

>> Midwest Internet Exchange

>> The Brothers WISP

>> From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net >
>> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
>> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:12:45 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101
>> spectrum

>> WISPA has been asked to participate in a wireless industry push to explore
>> unlicensed use in the current Part 101 6Ghz spectrum. The idea is to increase
>> the current Part 15 allowed power limits and to bring in UNII rules, along 
>> with
>> additional mitigations currently under study (e.g., sensing, database) to
>> protect incumbents. As there are no federal users (other than PTP) this would
>> not require the ESC system of CBRS and is potentially considerably simpler to
>> implement.

>> The upside is significantly more spectrum availability in a high
>> power/capacity/range band. The downside is some potential loss of geographic
>> exclusivity and availability of new 6GHz Part 101 PTP links in exchange for
>> greater reliance on the use of spectrum sharing mechanisms over time.

>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the 
>> membership
>> and for those who use them if there would be significant opposition to using
>> the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.

>> Mark

>> Mark Radabaugh
>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>> 419-261-5996

>> ___
>> 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

Re: [WISPA] Maxxwave x86 router ethernet port problem

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I have not seen this issue on any of our i7 x86 routers... 

A few questions:- 

What is connected to these Ethernet ports ? any surge protectors in the middle 
? 
Disabling them and enabling them have any effect ? 
Doing a physical disconnect or reconnect have any affect ? 

When did the problem start ? 

This sounds like a hardware problem more than anything else (i.e. not a 
software issue). 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Fabien" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:28:53 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Maxxwave x86 router ethernet port problem

> We have a maxxwave i7 x86 router from Baltic Networks. What I'm seeing is a
> problem where the ethernet ports stop working one at a time. The remote side
> will still show a 1G link but the router either shows 10Meg or No Link and no
> traffic will pass.
> This happens to the ports one at a time maybe once a week or so, until several
> are not working. Then I have to power cycle the router to get them all back
> working again.

> Running 6.32.3

> Is this just faulty hardware that I need to replace, or any other suggestions?

> Thanks
> Chris Fabien
> LakeNet LLC

> ___
> 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] Fwd: MetroLinq radios SNMP MIB's

[Faisal Imtiaz]

It's amazing as to the possibilities by just asking TechSupport ! 

:) 

Here you go ! 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "John Reiner" 
> To: "faisal" 
> Cc: "support" 
> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 10:23:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [WISPA] MetroLinq radios SNMP MIB's

> Re: Fwd: [WISPA] MetroLinq radios SNMP MIB's
> Hi Faisal,

> The MIBs are here:

> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/putfsmaxrrs40bi/AAB6_y7yswZ79_MnrNnYFKAUa?dl=0

> Best Regards,

> Helpful? Click to give nino thanks!

> On May 05, 2017 at 9:23 AM faisal < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:
>> Please see below :)

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>> > From: "Eduardo" < eme...@webjogger.com >
>> > To: "WISPA General List" < Wireless@wispa.org >
>> > Sent: Thursday, May 4, 2017 4:17:48 PM
>> > Subject: [WISPA] MetroLinq radios SNMP MIB's

>> > Does anyone have these MIB’s that want to share?
>> > I couldn’t find that in the Ignite support website.
>> > Eduardo

>> > ___
>> > Wireless mailing list
>> > Wireless@wispa.org
>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

> Powered by UserVoice.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Prayers for Mac Dearman

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Best wishes and prayers for a speedy full recovery . 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "John Scrivner" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 12:56:30 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Prayers for Mac Dearman

> I am certain he does not want any big attention about this but I am posting it
> anyway. Mac Dearman is having heart bypass surgery this morning. I know many 
> of
> you know Mac on here so please say a prayer for an old friend to be healed. 
> Mac
> was one of the founding members of WISPA and led the efforts to put 
> Mississippi
> and Louisiana back together post-Katrina. He is still operating his WISP in
> Rayville, LA and he is a dear friend to me and many others.
> Thank you,
> John Scrivner

> ___
> 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] 10Ghz PMP solution

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Manuel, 

For what part of the world are you seeking such product /solution for ? 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Manuel Marín" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 12:47:09 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] 10Ghz PMP solution

> Dear Wispa community
> We are looking for 10Ghz MP solution and I was wondering if someone can
> recommend a vendor for a point to multipoint solution in the 10Ghz band

> Thank you

> ___
> 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 my spies are talking about

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Think short distance, few meters to few hundred meters ... 
Think fat pipes.. 
Think small CPE mounted out side the house... 

Fiber drop to a home might be cheaper under certain specific settings... 
buy mounting outdoor small cpe is going to win in most urban and major metro 
areas. 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Matt Hoppes" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:40:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] What my spies are talking about

> I'm a bit at a loss. These are line of sight frequencies. How is this easier
> than running a cheapfiber drop to the customer home?

> Isn't most of the cost on FTTH related to getting he fiber to the street and 
> on
> the poles?

> On Jan 25, 2017, at 23:49, Clay Stewart < 
> cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com >
> wrote:

>> Put my money on microcells, all,the rage for cities.

>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:58 AM Marco Coelho < coelh...@gmail.com > wrote:

>>> Some of my friends at Verizon are talking a major shift in their Fiber
>>> Deployment.
>>> They have decided Fiber to the Home is non practical. They have adopted a 
>>> fiber
>>> to the pedestal scheme with the last part of the connectivity being 
>>> wireless to
>>> the home. Details on bands used have not been provided, but that is 
>>> apparently
>>> their new model. They have sold their copper plant in Texas to Frontier as a
>>> part of this plan. Interesting times.

>>> --
>>> 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

>> --

>> --
>> Clay Stewart, COO/CTO
>> SCS Broadband
>> A Division of Acelanet, LLC
>> 434.263.6363 O
>> 434.942.6510 C
>> cstew...@scsbroadband.com
>> “We Keep You Up and Running”

>> Please send sales inquiries to sa...@scsbroadband.com
>> Please send service/repair requests to supp...@scsbroadband.com

>> ___
>> 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] What my spies are talking about

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Just to add to that 

a) Take all what Brian said below, and add to it the fact that, in many cities 
they are very quietly installing Micro-Pops, every few blocks, fiber feed 
(essentially replacing street light poles with, poles which are light poles and 
micropops).

b) The noise and developments in LTE-U

c) The very strange, over-priced acquisition of FPL-Fibernet by Crown Castle

d) Relatively quite conversion, installation of GPON system on every building 
that ATT had a Metro Ethernet presence in.

e) Hype and noise about Gigabit fiber delivery, installation of fiber based 
service in select areas, ATT Conversion of their select IFTL neighborhoods to 
Gigabit fiber..

f) The rumblings about Cable Co's moving over the Docsis 3

Granted that this is not ubiquitous across the nation.. but I can see the 
competitive service providers could easily be starved out by the choke hold on 
being able to deliver/buy/have access to  fat pipe especially in the middle 
mile.

I think in most major metro areas the perceived minimum base level of service 
offering is going to hit high triple digit numbers in terms of bandwidth i.e. 
200meg,300meg,500meg etc... we are already seeing customer expectations  /  
perceptions around 100meg.

Regards


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Webster" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:46:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] What my spies are talking about

> Remember, Verizon bought XO Communications. XO has 24 GHz and 39 GHz
> spectrum over most of the country, so now Verizon owns that spectrum. They
> seem to be taking the same approach Windstream and Google are for last mile
> connectivity, but Verizon owns the spectrum. Windstream is leasing spectrum
> in these same bands from Straightpath (http://straightpath39.com/) and
> Google is looking to build in 70 and 80 GHz with E-Band licenses.  All of
> the sudden the WISP industry looks good enough for the big boys to do it
> too. Cambridge Networks has PTMP radios for these bands already, 600 meg per
> sector. Hang them on the fiber at the pole and create a very small cell type
> system. This will work great for backhaul on their Pico cellular network
> expansion for LTE/Cellular as well as a good tool for FTTH and Business
> class circuits.
> 
> http://cbnl.com/vectastar-600
> 
> http://cbnl.com/vectastar-platform-introduction
> 
> 
> 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 Fred Goldstein
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:19 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] What my spies are talking about
> 
> On 1/25/2017 11:58 AM, Marco Coelho wrote:
>> Some of my friends at Verizon are talking a major shift in their Fiber
>> Deployment.
>> They have decided Fiber to the Home is non practical.  They have
>> adopted a fiber to the pedestal scheme with the last part of the
>> connectivity being wireless to the home.  Details on bands used have
>> not been provided, but that is apparently their new model. They have
>> sold their copper plant in Texas to Frontier as a part of this plan.
>> Interesting times.
> 
> That's right.  FiOS is basically over, for new builds. Too expensive. It is
> mostly down to some FTTPR (fiber to the press release). They told Boston
> that they would build FiOS there. Lots of good press last year.
> But they actually had built out some neighborhoods about a decade ago, and
> simply not activated it. So now they're activating it and claiming it's a
> new build. But in the meantime they are planning massive densification of
> their wireless capacity, using street light poles, and basically just
> building fiber to the pole. They've told this to Wall Street; they haven't
> made it clear to the locals.
> 
> While 4G meant LTE, 5G apparently just means "whatever we do after deploying
> LTE, because 5 comes after 4".
> 
> ATT has this "IP transition" plan which doesn't have much to do with IP.
> It basically means they're abandoning most of the copper, updating some
> short loops to U-Verse, and putting in a lot more wireless to replace the
> copper. It's not fiber speed but it's cheap. Both AT&T and Verizon are very
> very interested in 3.5 GHz CBRS, as well as millimeter wave for where that
> works. You may recall that a few months ago, AT&T announced a plan to put
> millimeter wave backhaul on top of utility pol

Re: [WISPA] Best cat5 for a monopole

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Most of the good quality outdoor Ethernet cables have a 'strength tape' in the 
middle... 
UBNT Carrier has a nice piece of plastic in the middle... 
Shireen cable has a nice fiber tape .. 
etc etc. 

If you can tie these cables at the top securely, then there should be no issue 
is letting it dangle in the center of the monopole. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Fabien" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 2:39:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Best cat5 for a monopole

> Tips on what connectors to use? That looks like a very thick cable. Also how 
> to
> hang it at the top?

> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 2:31 PM, TJ Trout < t...@voltbb.com > wrote:

>> bbdge or bbdg6

>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Chris Fabien < ch...@lakenetmi.com > wrote:

>>> We are doing a deployment on a 90ft steel monopole where our cable will hang
>>> inside the pole. It seems like we should be using a better grade of cable 
>>> than
>>> the Primus shielded cat5 we usually use for towers where it is taped to the
>>> leg. Any suggestions?
>>> Thanks
>>> Chris Fabien
>>> LakeNet LLC

>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65 Ghz License

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Want some serious advice ? 

Do yourself a favor, and try to break the addiction of using un-licened freq 
for backhaul... 
hold your self in, and explore the world of licensed links... even if you can 
only afford to by equipment on the used market space.. 

Believe me, you will sleep better, and focus on the side of your business where 
it counts 
The outlay has a tremendous ROI. 

Rough numbers... 

Coordination cost sub $700 
FCC license cost $500 / site 
Hardware (realistic / reasonable spend) $3000 to $6000 for a complete link 
and this will give you roughly 300meg duplex (more or less depending on 
equipment, freq and channel etc etc). 

:) 

Best of luck, and my apologies for not answering your direct question. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chadwick Wachs" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 11:09:41 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 Ghz License

> We are considering the purchase of a 3.65 license from an existing license
> holder who is not using it. We would be using it for a handful of backhauls to
> get off of crowded 5GHz space. However, I'm not sure if this is a smart move
> (buying a 3.65 license) and wanted some insight from those who have much more
> knowledge on where the FCC is going with this and what the likely value of a
> 3.65 license will be both today and next year (?) when the licenses are
> potentially opened back up.
> It looks like these licenses, at least in my area, are selling between $500 
> and
> $2000. It sounds like $1,000 tends to be about the sweet spot for the few that
> have sold around here.

> ___
> 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] MDU Ethernet Switch

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I have not used them, buthere is what you are asking about.. 

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CRS_features 

http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:CRS_examples 

specs on performance as a switch and or Router are listed on the bottom of the 
specs's page on the routerboard.com web site. 

https://routerboard.com/CRS112-8G-4S-IN 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Colton Conor" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 9:27:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MDU Ethernet Switch

> Dan and Faisal,
> I am now looking at the CRS112-8G-4S-IN. Cost and port wise its seems to be a
> great fit for this application. Looks like you can also power it by POE In
> which is nice.

> Can you help me understand how something like a CRS112-8G-4S-IN compares to a
> tradition Mikrotik router that has a switch build in like the RB2011iLS-IN?

> Does Mikrotik support the following features you would find in a typical 
> access
> platform like:

> Private VLAN (Protected port)
> DHCP Snooping and DHCP Option 82
> port security
> limit the number MACs per Port

> Would features like these be done on the switch, or on the slow CPU causing it
> to not be line rate? At this point, I don't understand what would be line rate
> features, and what would be CPU slow features. My understanding is there is a
> switch interface section?

> For comparison, it looks like the Planet switch supports all of these features
> http://www.planet.com.tw/en/product/product.php?id=48527#spec

> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Dan Harling < harl...@capeanncomm.com > wrote:

>> RouterOS has a CLI in addition to the Winbox GUI, and you can connect
>> via MAC (from the same subnet) as well as IP. It also has 'netwatch'
>> and scripting, very configurable local & remote logging, traffic
>> shaping, pretty much all you'd expect from a proper router.

>> The devices I mentioned have switch chips that allow either some or
>> all ports to operate at wire speed. But you'd also have the option of
>> going to a routed topology, should that become desirable in the
>> future. (If your design links pairs of these devices in addition to
>> the home runs, for fail-over in case of a break, a routed network
>> would let you make use of that capacity; whereas in a bridged network,
>> STP would simply disable the extra link until it's needed.)

>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Colton Conor < colton.co...@gmail.com > 
>> wrote:
>> > Daniel,

>> > What functions would I want in RouterOS that are no in SwOS for this
>> > application? Can RouterOS devices be turned into a switch, and operate at
>> > full line speed rates? 1 Gbps in and out?

>> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Dan Harling < harl...@capeanncomm.com > 
>> > wrote:

>> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Colton Conor < colton.co...@gmail.com >
>> >> wrote:

>> >> > - At Least 1 SFP fiber uplink port. 2 would be nice for daisy chaining,
>> >> > but
>> >> > not required.
>> >> > - 4 to 8 Copper Gigabit Ports. I don't need POE output power on these
>> >> > ports.
>> >> > - SNMP For remote monitoring
>> >> > - CLI or some sort of web based remote management
>> >> > - Temperature Hardened or able to be in a hot attic
>> >> > - Some sort of L2 port isolation or private vlans where other
>> >> > subscribers
>> >> > can see each other. All traffic goes in and out of uplink
>> >> > - Rate limiting for each individual port
>> >> > - Full duplex speed and wireline switching is preferred.
>> >> > - We be nice to be remotely powered using PoE in, but not required.
>> ...
>> >> There have been several updates to SwOS over the past couple years
>> >> (currently at 1.17), but I would recommend a 2011, 3011, or CRS--all
>> >> of which run RouterOS--over a SwOS device. ROS has far, far more
>> >> features that you would want to have in this situation. (I only use
>> >> SwOS for passive PoE distribution: RB260GSP.)

>> Daniel Harling <><
>> Engineering, Cape Ann Communications
>> 183 Main Street, Gloucester, MA 01930
>> 978-879-7744 (cell)
>> harl...@capeanncomm.com
>> ___
>> 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] MDU Ethernet Switch

[Faisal Imtiaz]

FYI, Mikrotik makes a whole line of actual switches called the CRS line... 
These are switches with a smaller/weaker RouterOS CPU/Processor... 

Perfectly good for line rate switching, and a small amount of Routing 
(management ? ) 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Colton Conor" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 3:25:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MDU Ethernet Switch

> Daniel,
> What functions would I want in RouterOS that are no in SwOS for this
> application? Can RouterOS devices be turned into a switch, and operate at full
> line speed rates? 1 Gbps in and out?

> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Dan Harling < harl...@capeanncomm.com > wrote:

>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Colton Conor < colton.co...@gmail.com > 
>> wrote:

>> > - At Least 1 SFP fiber uplink port. 2 would be nice for daisy chaining, but
>> > not required.
>> > - 4 to 8 Copper Gigabit Ports. I don't need POE output power on these 
>> > ports.
>> > - SNMP For remote monitoring
>> > - CLI or some sort of web based remote management
>> > - Temperature Hardened or able to be in a hot attic
>> > - Some sort of L2 port isolation or private vlans where other subscribers
>> > can see each other. All traffic goes in and out of uplink
>> > - Rate limiting for each individual port
>> > - Full duplex speed and wireline switching is preferred.
>> > - We be nice to be remotely powered using PoE in, but not required. Might 
>> > be
>> > hard however to get power to the attic or side of building.


>> > So far, options that come to mind are:

>> > https://routerboard.com/RB260GS for $36. Looks like a good option, but not
>> > sure about SwitchOS. Worried Mikrotik won't continue to improve switchOS.
>> > Feature set seems limited. Not sure about port isolation options? Says it
>> > support Poe-In for power. Temp range looks good. No CLI.

>> There have been several updates to SwOS over the past couple years
>> (currently at 1.17), but I would recommend a 2011, 3011, or CRS--all
>> of which run RouterOS--over a SwOS device. ROS has far, far more
>> features that you would want to have in this situation. (I only use
>> SwOS for passive PoE distribution: RB260GSP.)

>> Daniel Harling <><
>> Engineering, Cape Ann Communications
>> 183 Main Street, Gloucester, MA 01930
>> 978-879-7744 (cell)
>> harl...@capeanncomm.com
>> ___
>> 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] IPV6 deploymernt

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Thanks for the great solution and explanation. 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Tim Way" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:01:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] IPV6 deploymernt

> Art,
> So I know of two solid methods that could solve your problem. Neither are 
> super
> awesome and both would involve NAT.

> 1. IPv6 only to the client with NAT64 and DNS64 to handle IPv4 only 
> connectivity
> 2. IPv4 CGN Shared Address Space, RFC 6598 100.64.0.0/10 , and IPv6 Global
> Unicast running in Dual Stack

> Either one would work. I apologize in advance for the long post that follows.

> I've only done the configurations on Cisco routers with the radios just 
> passing
> traffic at layer 2. I'd have to check the feature set of your routers routing
> wise but it shouldn't be hard. It also could be built in a lab with static
> routing largely. I think Mikrotik supports NAT64 but again for a lab
> environment any recent Cisco device could be used with IP Services licensing.

> Your address plan for your global unicast IPv6 space comes into play. This is
> how I would lab it up including moving routing to the tower with the CPE in
> bridge mode:

> Your fictional IPv6 prefix: :::/32

> Your NAT64 Prefix: ::cc00::/96

> Customer DHCPv6-PD Allocation Prefix: ::aa00::/40
> Your fictional customer #1: The Johnson Family, ::aa00:0100::/56
> Your fictional customer #2: The Billings' Family, ::aa00:0200::/56

> Fictional Tower 1
> ISP Mgmt VLAN of CPE: 11, ::bb00:0011::/64
> ISP Customer VLAN of CPE: 12, ::bb00:0012::/64
> ISP Router at the tower on VLAN 11: ::bb00:0011::1/64
> ISP Router at the tower on VLAN 12: ::bb00:0012::1/64

> The Johnson Family Setup:
> ISP CPE VLAN 11 IP: ::bb00:0011::f/64
> Customer's Netgear WAN Interface: ::bb00:0012::f/64
> Customer's Netgear LAN Interface: ::aa00:010a::1/64
> Customer's Netgear Guest WiFi: ::aa00:010b::1/64

> The Billings' Family Setup:
> ISP CPE VLAN 11 IP: ::bb00:0011::e/64
> Customer's Netgear WAN Interface: ::bb00:0012::e/64
> Customer's Netgear LAN Interface: ::aa00:020a::1/64
> Customer's Netgear Guest WiFi: ::aa00:020b::1/64

> 1. You'd bridge VLAN 12 through the CPE to customer's WAN interface as the
> native VLAN and put the IP on VLAN 11.
> 2. If you use static routing and manual address assignment to eliminate
> variables in the lab you'll want to add static routes on the tower router for
> the ::/56 prefixes that would be allocated to each customer. Normally these
> routes will be injected into the routing table at the DHCPv6 router and could
> be distributed from there.
> 3. The last piece of the puzzle will be adding in the NAT64 and DNS64 devices.
> BIND can do DNS64 and you could use a Cisco router to do the NAT64. You'd want
> the "Customer's Netgear" to use the DNS64 server as it's upstream DNS server 
> to
> ensure that it receives  records for sites that only have A records. This
> is the fragile component of the DNS64 and NAT64 deployment because it requires
> the customers computer or router uses your resolver. You will want to ensure
> the router performing NAT64 is advertising the prefix it is using for NAT64
> into your IGP or that your default routed traffic lands on that NAT64 to 
> ensure
> it is routed correctly.

> This should get you a functional IPv6 only customer network that only returns
>  records for all DNS requests. It's a little late so I apologize for any
> mistakes in the addressing. Also I will think about doing this with routing at
> the CPE as well overnight and add that response. I'd be very intrigued to see
> this in a lab environment with the fictional customers all setup to see how
> NAT64 and DNS64 actually works in reality instead of just implementing CGN
> which I see as the less visible or resilient change for the customer. That 
> said
> I see the pure IPv6 deployment with NAT64 and DNS64 as the better long term
> solution if you could reliably ensure your customers use your DHCP server or
> ensure that your tech support says to reset that right away. It also would
> break a customer using OpenDNS to restrict web-sites from their kid's for
> example.

> Thanks,

> Tim

> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Art Stephens < asteph...@ptera.com > wrote:

>> Tim,
>> So we are an IPV4 ISP not able to get any more IPV4 address space.

Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's

[Faisal Imtiaz]

So, there is some merit to the design of an ISP network using L2TP Tunnels and 
PPPoE. It has some nice appeal in ability to hide underlying infrastructure, 
have a common way of managing customers etc. 

But ... But .. But... when it comes to Wireless there is a Big Kibosh !.. 
(to the best of my knowledge, the Radios we all use are not able to respect 
traffic priority / dscp tags for any and all traffic flowing inside the PPPoE 
encapsulation). 

Thus in today's networks this is starting to be a No Go 
(even the DSL world which embraced the PPPoE, is not using this in their next 
gen upgrades... they are using MAC address & TR609 based provisioning ) 

My 2 cents... 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Tim" 
> To: "Ian Fraser" , "WISPA General List"
> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2016 4:16:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's

> We deployed for the last 10 years using fixed IP schemas per tower

> Allocating IP addresses from a fixed pool (not dhcp)

> Firewall rules locking out unassigned IP addresses

> Plus we do 99% managed routers

> However we are reevaluating PPOE with redundant radius servers that have
> geographic separation. With an addition of Mac address authentication

> From: Ian Fraser [mailto:ian_fra...@gozoom.ca]
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 5:32 PM
> To: Tim ; WISPA General List
> 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's

> OK. What's your alternative?

> Ian

>  Original message 
> From: Tim < t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com >
> Date:10-21-2016 10:21 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's

> Not a fan of ppoe.

> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID

> Tim Way < t...@way.vg > wrote:

> 2k12r2 ha DHCP service, Linux clustering or simple dual scopes!

> On Oct 21, 2016 6:16 PM, "Adair Winter" < ada...@amarillowireless.net > wrote:
>> What happens when DHCP quits and you can't manage anything?

>> Powercode assigns the next available management IP for whatever tower/range 
>> and
>> we statically assign to the CPE

>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ian Fraser < ian_fra...@gozoom.ca > wrote:
>>> Not sure how static would be safer than DHCP for CPE mgmt?

>>> Ian

>>>  Original message 
>>> From: Fred Goldstein < f...@interisle.net >
>>> Date:10-21-2016 6:31 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: wireless@wispa.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's

>>> On 10/21/2016 5:55 PM, Ian Fraser wrote:


>>> > PPPOE for Res traffic. VLAN's for Biz. Public IP's are statically
>>> > assigned. DHCP for CPE's MgMt IP assignment. PPPOE session and CPE's
>>> > connection to the AP authenticated by Radius. Radius Accounting is
>>> > used for traffic billing and session info.


>>> Wouldn't it be safer to use static IPs for CPE management? I'd do that,
>>> private IPs of course on a management VLAN not visible to customers.

>>> > Per site: 2 VLANs for MgMt (1 for Tower/AP/UPS etc and 1 for CPEs) and
>>> > 1 VLAN per AP for PPPOE or a dedicated VLAN per Biz. AP's are bridged
>>> > for CPE's PPPOE to NAS. uPnP enabled CPEs. Cust Routers are not
>>> > allowed to initiate PPPOE. PPPOE NAS's are mostly colocated tower
>>> > sites so that backhauls can see QOS markers on traffic and not just a
>>> > Tunnel.

>>> > BGP Advertises IP range per Fibre POP and feeds 0.0.0.0/0 into OSPF
>>> > for redistributing routes inside the AS. Infrastructure MgMt is on
>>> > RFC1918 and customers are Public IPs. Firewall rules on
>>> > NAS/Router/CPE prevent Customer IP's from reaching MgMt IP's.

>>> Nice if you have enough public IPs for customers. I'm not sure BGP and
>>> PPPOE are necessarily the easiest protocols for this purpose, but
>>> definitely do use the VLANs and keep the routing out of the radios.

>>> > Mikrotik for all routing. Netonix for most switching. Mikrotik for
>>> > most PtMP (probably uncommon) but LTE is Telrad in areas where it is
>>> > deployed, which skews the above architecture a bit :( LTE is not for
>>> > newbies though mind you maybe Mikrotik isn't either lol... but in
>

Re: [WISPA] Load Balancing / Failover scripts for MK?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US12/ tomas . pdf 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 12:54:54 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Load Balancing / Failover scripts for MK?

> Got a small ISP customer looking for such scripts… any good ones out there?

> Gino Villarini
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

> ___
> 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] Shielding FM noise with conduit?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Cool, Thanks for completing the loop. 

The one concern I would have is that inside the 100ft section, the Ethernet 
cable would be 'dangling' without any support.. 
How did you manage to secure that ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chadwick Wachs" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:10:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Shielding FM noise with conduit?

> Wanted to circle back on this with results. Bought a 100' section of metal 
> lined
> LiquidTight at Home Depot (3/4" since I only needed 2 cables). The 100' 
> section
> was exactly the right length to get from the antennas all the way to my 
> cabinet
> in the machine room so now the cables are protected in the cable trays down
> below as well.
> Used hose clamps to attach the conduit to the tower every ~6 feet. Since I had
> to make 2 90 degree turns on the way down, the flexible conduit was great. I
> did pull my two Ethernet wires through the conduit while it was on the ground 
> -
> figured that would be much easier - and it was. Cable is Ubiquiti Carrier
> Shielded (the double shielded version). I also added the ends with the
> grounding cable and grounded both the top and the bottom of the Ethernet to a
> good ground.

> Been up for about two weeks now with no Ethernet issues at all. Did not put
> Ferrites on these two cables like all the rest of mine have. I still get an
> occasional Ethernet packet drop or error on the Ferrited cables. So far, solid
> on the two cables in the LiquidTight.

> Yes, fiber is still a better long term solution but this was fairly 
> inexpensive
> and quick and is working great. Thanks for the suggestion.

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote:

>> my bad, i was answering late in the evening, i was thinking PVC when you said
>> EMT. EMT will work too since it's metal but it's hard to work with on a 
>> tower.
>> the 3/4" liquidtight that you linked to will fit 3 cables. we usually run 1
>> 1/2" or 1 3/4" (i can't remember which at the moment) and you can fit 13 
>> cables
>> in it. we run it up to a box on the tower and then use 3/4" to run from the 
>> box
>> to the individual APs or backhauls. we run the conduit first and then drop 
>> the
>> ethernet cables down from the top.
>> -sean

>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:17 PM, Chadwick Wachs < c...@auwireless.net > 
>> wrote:

>>> Interesting... Certainly easier to run. Because I have to make two 90 degree
>>> turns (damn "H" shaped tower), I think I'll pull my Ethernet through it on 
>>> the
>>> ground and then run it up the tower with cable in it. I'm guessing that 
>>> cutting
>>> it and putting 90 degree elbows (with cable pull windows) on it is a bad 
>>> idea
>>> from an RF standpoint?
>>> My local HD has this in stock:

>>> http://www.homedepot.com/p/AFC-Cable-Systems-3-4-in-x-100-ft-Liquidtight-Flexible-Steel-Conduit-6203-30-00/202262413

>>> That looks what you describe.

>>> I have to ask - from a physics(?) standpoint, what keeps RF out of the
>>> Liquidtight but not EMT?

>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote:

>>>> If you do conduit you need to use liquidtight with the metal inside. EMT 
>>>> will do
>>>> nothing to stop the RF from bleeding.
>>>> We've done it on several towers with great success.

>>>> -Sean

>>>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016, Chadwick Wachs < c...@auwireless.net > 
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> With two new FM stations moving onto the tower I am on, I need to solve 
>>>>> the FM
>>>>> noise problem once and for all. I've been using Ferrites on each end of 
>>>>> the
>>>>> Ethernet cable and its been pretty successful but I need to add a couple 
>>>>> more
>>>>> antennas so I am considering conduit.

>>>>> This is not my area of expertise but from what I read, it sounds like 
>>>>> running
>>>>> conduit up the tower (only 75' for my antennas) is the best long term 
>>>>> solution?
>>>>> My plan was to buy some 3/4" EMT in 10' sections and clamp it to the 
>>>>> tower from
>>>>> bottom to top and run my shielded cables inside of that.

>

Re: [WISPA] 60 Ghz gear

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I would strongly suggest that you reach out the the Ignite folks to assist you, 
they have been extremely helpful 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Dan Parrish" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 5:22:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 60 Ghz gear

> Yeah, in a PTP situation, we get more than 500mbits/sec on the workbench.
> Replace one end with the "AP" and we get 25-30mbits/sec. I've adjusted the
> transmit power to compensate for the difference in gain. Seems like there's
> something not working correctly.

> --danp

> On 08/26/2016 04:03 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

>> You had something not setup right.

>> We have seen arguments about 600meg vs 800meg vs 1g type discussions.. but if
>> you were seeing 30... then you had something totally off...

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Dan Parrish" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:55:01 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 60 Ghz gear

>>> We've gotten some this week as well. Initial tests weren't too impressive, 
>>> but
>>> I'm sure I can improve the RF alignment. At -55 on both sides, I was only 
>>> able
>>> to pass about 30mbits/sec, which was much lower than I anticipated. How is
>>> everyone else faring in their tests? Please include RSSI and TCP 
>>> performance if
>>> possible.

>>> --danp

>>> On 08/25/2016 03:13 PM, Chris Ruschmann wrote:

>>>> Just got these in, smaller than I thought they would be…

>>>> Sector on the left, CPE on the right. I’ll get them setup shortly.

>>>> ___
>>>> 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

Re: [WISPA] Sample traffic study for FCC 499A anyone?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Would it not be easier to separate the LD rather than go thru the traffic study 
? 

just saying... 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Carullo, Scott" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:44:59 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Sample traffic study for FCC 499A anyone?

> Looking for a sample, we need to submit traffic study wondering how others 
> have
> presented it.
> 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] 60 Ghz gear

[Faisal Imtiaz]

You had something not setup right. 

We have seen arguments about 600meg vs 800meg vs 1g type discussions.. but if 
you were seeing 30... then you had something totally off... 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Dan Parrish" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 5:55:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 60 Ghz gear

> We've gotten some this week as well. Initial tests weren't too impressive, but
> I'm sure I can improve the RF alignment. At -55 on both sides, I was only able
> to pass about 30mbits/sec, which was much lower than I anticipated. How is
> everyone else faring in their tests? Please include RSSI and TCP performance 
> if
> possible.

> --danp

> On 08/25/2016 03:13 PM, Chris Ruschmann wrote:

>> Just got these in, smaller than I thought they would be…

>> Sector on the left, CPE on the right. I’ll get them setup shortly.

>> ___
>> 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] 60 Ghz gear

[Faisal Imtiaz]

make sure you also got the Scopes !... 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Ruschmann" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 5:13:01 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] 60 Ghz gear

> Just got these in, smaller than I thought they would be…

> Sector on the left, CPE on the right. I’ll get them setup shortly.

> ___
> 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] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

[Faisal Imtiaz]

ours are typically powered by either the brick or a Netonix switch 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chris Ruschmann" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 11:37:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

> How are you powering them? Power brick or switch?
> On Jun 20, 2016 7:35 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:

>> Are there the only two radios you have ? maybe there is a physical hardware
>> issue with one of the radios..

>> we have seen something similar with on another link we were working on for
>> another WISP. No conclusions yet, but one radio is definitely doing hokey
>> stuff...They have spares, will be trying another pair (the radios linked up 
>> on
>> the bench, but would not link nor go thru the alignment process on a 400m
>> link).

>> Regards.

>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

>>> From: "Chadwick Wachs" < c...@auwireless.net >
>>> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:47:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

>>> Update to all on this. We are running MCS1, the latest public firmware and
>>> contacted Ignite support. They are responsive. We did get the 60 GHz radios 
>>> to
>>> link up once - for about 30 minutes. Then, the 60 GHz radio on the client 
>>> end
>>> died. Can't open the 60 GHz aiming tool and the dashboard acts like the 
>>> radio
>>> is off.
>>> We have been through a number of reboots to get the 60 GHz radio to wake 
>>> back
>>> up. No dice. Ignite is aware of the issue, acknowledges I am not the only 
>>> one
>>> who has seen this but so far no solutions. Last night, the 5 GHz link 
>>> between
>>> these two radios died at 3am (not a production link). We lost all wireless 
>>> and
>>> ethernet access to the client radio until a reboot.

>>> After rebooting, the 5 GHz would not pass any traffic until the 60 GHz 
>>> radios
>>> were turned off in the interface on both ends. Both ends are on big UPSs so 
>>> I
>>> don't think power is the issue, I think there is buggy firmware. While I 
>>> have
>>> some time to deal with testing firmware and trouble shooting, I don't have
>>> unlimited time to do this.

>>> It is back running on 5 GHz. It is aimed well - we did get a solid 60 GHz 
>>> signal
>>> but we never got the 60's to link back up after one mysteriously stopped.

>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Rob Genovesi < r...@corp.coastside.net > 
>>> wrote:

>>>> Aiming takes patience, the scopes aren't perfect but a huge help. We
>>>> found that turning off auto MCS and using fixed lower rate helped a
>>>> lot. Make sure you have the newest firmware, I believe there are more
>>>> updates coming out soon as well. IgniteNet support was responsive and
>>>> very helpful when we had questions.

>>>> Rob Genovesi • Coastside.Net • Owner
>>>> 650-712-5900 • 525B Obispo Rd • Half Moon Bay CA

>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Chadwick Wachs < c...@auwireless.net > 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > I have been trying for a couple days to get a new PTP60-35 60 GHz link up
>>>> > and running with no luck. Looking for some help / suggestions from anyone
>>>> > who has been successful getting links up. The 5 GHz link is working but 
>>>> > 60
>>>> > never trains up. I bought the spotting scopes and each end is dead 
>>>> > center.
>>>> > Good old fashioned up/down/left/right aiming methods do not seem to work
>>>> > either and IgniteNet is lacking in the support department.

>>>> > Anyone want to contact me off list if you have any suggestions on what
>>>> > worked for you?

>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > Chad

>>>> > ___
>>>> > 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

>>> --

>>> 

>>> AU Wireless (Golden Wireless)

>>> www.AUwireless.net

>>> Facebook | @auwirelessnet

>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [WISPA] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Are there the only two radios you have ? maybe there is a physical hardware 
issue with one of the radios.. 

we have seen something similar with on another link we were working on for 
another WISP. No conclusions yet, but one radio is definitely doing hokey 
stuff...They have spares, will be trying another pair (the radios linked up on 
the bench, but would not link nor go thru the alignment process on a 400m 
link). 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chadwick Wachs" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 12:47:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

> Update to all on this. We are running MCS1, the latest public firmware and
> contacted Ignite support. They are responsive. We did get the 60 GHz radios to
> link up once - for about 30 minutes. Then, the 60 GHz radio on the client end
> died. Can't open the 60 GHz aiming tool and the dashboard acts like the radio
> is off.
> We have been through a number of reboots to get the 60 GHz radio to wake back
> up. No dice. Ignite is aware of the issue, acknowledges I am not the only one
> who has seen this but so far no solutions. Last night, the 5 GHz link between
> these two radios died at 3am (not a production link). We lost all wireless and
> ethernet access to the client radio until a reboot.

> After rebooting, the 5 GHz would not pass any traffic until the 60 GHz radios
> were turned off in the interface on both ends. Both ends are on big UPSs so I
> don't think power is the issue, I think there is buggy firmware. While I have
> some time to deal with testing firmware and trouble shooting, I don't have
> unlimited time to do this.

> It is back running on 5 GHz. It is aimed well - we did get a solid 60 GHz 
> signal
> but we never got the 60's to link back up after one mysteriously stopped.

> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Rob Genovesi < r...@corp.coastside.net > 
> wrote:

>> Aiming takes patience, the scopes aren't perfect but a huge help. We
>> found that turning off auto MCS and using fixed lower rate helped a
>> lot. Make sure you have the newest firmware, I believe there are more
>> updates coming out soon as well. IgniteNet support was responsive and
>> very helpful when we had questions.

>> Rob Genovesi • Coastside.Net • Owner
>> 650-712-5900 • 525B Obispo Rd • Half Moon Bay CA

>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Chadwick Wachs < c...@auwireless.net > 
>> wrote:
>> > I have been trying for a couple days to get a new PTP60-35 60 GHz link up
>> > and running with no luck. Looking for some help / suggestions from anyone
>> > who has been successful getting links up. The 5 GHz link is working but 60
>> > never trains up. I bought the spotting scopes and each end is dead center.
>> > Good old fashioned up/down/left/right aiming methods do not seem to work
>> > either and IgniteNet is lacking in the support department.

>> > Anyone want to contact me off list if you have any suggestions on what
>> > worked for you?

>> > Thanks,
>> > Chad

>> > ___
>> > 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

> --

> 

> AU Wireless (Golden Wireless)

> www.AUwireless.net

> Facebook | @auwirelessnet

> ___
> 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] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

[Faisal Imtiaz]

How long is the link ? 
If you are dead on with the scopes then you are off on the link :), they scopes 
are always off a bit... 
What firmware are you running ? 

Have you tried the alignment mode ? setup one side a TX and the other as RX and 
then reverse that 
What do you get when you do that... 

Aligning them can be an exercise in patience ! 

Feel free to call me, I will be more than happy to help. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

> From: "Chadwick Wachs" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:55:04 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Any IgniteNet MetroLinq customers out there

> I have been trying for a couple days to get a new PTP60-35 60 GHz link up and
> running with no luck. Looking for some help / suggestions from anyone who has
> been successful getting links up. The 5 GHz link is working but 60 never 
> trains
> up. I bought the spotting scopes and each end is dead center. Good old
> fashioned up/down/left/right aiming methods do not seem to work either and
> IgniteNet is lacking in the support department.
> Anyone want to contact me off list if you have any suggestions on what worked
> for you?

> Thanks,
> Chad

> ___
> 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] AirFiber Snow issues

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yea !... But I will argue the Murphy's method is even more accurate... 

If you Airfiber link drops in rain then .. you have 24ghz Rain Fade.. 

If your Airfiber link does not drop in rain then you have no 24ghz Rain Fade... 

For the sheer sake of argument ! 

Comparing how my link does when compared with yours in 24ghz is plain silly... 

But Comparing complete statements such as my 24ghz Link, which is X miles long, 
in Rain Zone or Region (state your region) does (or does not) drop in Rain 
would be a more meaningful statement... 

Anything else is just shooting the breeze at the water cooler.. 

:) 

Happy Friday Everyone ! 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: "WISPA General List" , "Adair Winter"
> 
> Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 11:54:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AirFiber Snow issues

> The ITU method is overly simplified. Many would argue Crane's method was more
> accurate.

> ( For the sheer sake of argument)

> We have found bay fog to be far better at disruption than any rains we have
> here. Even tidal shifts on open water shots don't mess with our links as
> much as bay fog does.

> On January 9, 2015 7:44:46 AM AKST, Adair Winter
>  wrote:
> > That's because all you get is dainty rain I guess.
> 
> > at .5" to 1" and hour along the path, it will drop.
> 

> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Matt Hoppes < mhop...@indigowireless.com >
> > wrote:
> 

> > > Naw I have yet to have my 1.5 mile airFiber go down or even
> > 
> 
> > > de-modulate past 6x in rain.
> > 
> 

> > > Matt Hoppes
> > 
> 
> > > Director of Information Technology
> > 
> 
> > > Indigo Wireless
> > 
> 
> > > +1 (570) 723-7312
> > 
> 

> > > On 1/9/15 11:34 AM, Adair Winter wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > > good luck with 99.999% uptime if it rains a lot in your area.
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Robert Clark < rcl...@boltinternet.com
> > 
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > Looking at acquiring AirFiber back haul but I am concerned that the
> > 
> 
> > > > front of the antenna is very flat and that snow would stick to it
> > 
> 
> > > > and degrade and possibly take down the link?
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > Has anyone seen this 
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > We will be using them on a 2 mile link and need 99.999 uptime
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > __ __
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > Robert W Clark
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > Network Administrator
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > Bolt Internet
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > 928-717-BOLT Etx 112
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > __ __
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > > Wireless mailing list
> > 
> 
> > > > Wireless@wispa.org 
> > 
> 
> > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > --
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > Adair Winter
> > 
> 
> > > > VP, Network Operations / Owner
> > 
> 
> > > > Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
> > 
> 
> > > > C: 806.231.7180
> > 
> 
> > > > http://www.amarillowireless.net
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > >
> > 
> 
> > > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > > 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
> > 
> 

> > --
> 

> > Adair Winter
> 
> > VP, Network Operations / Owner
> 
> > Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
> 
> > C: 806.231.7180
> 
> > http://www.amarillowireless.net
> 

> > Wireless mailing list
> 
> > Wireless@wispa.org
> 
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 

> --
> Sent from my Android device 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] Merry Christmas WISPA community

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>From all of us to all of you and your families... 

Best Wishes for a Very Merry Christmas ! 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Patrick Leary" 
> To: "WISPA General List" , tel...@wispa.org
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:29:46 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Merry Christmas WISPA community

> WISPs are a special breed, daring to do what most won't and what many can't,
> and generally in an area that needs their service desperately. While the big
> guys service "consumers," you service communities, filled with family,
> friends, and neighbors.

> As I tell my family and any who ask, what I enjoy most about this business is
> the fun, interesting, and often extraordinary people I've met and continue
> to meet. There are many who've never used a spec of my gear, but I'd trust
> with my life.

> Entering my 16th year on the vendor side of this wonderful industry, I'm more
> passionate and excited than ever about the opportunities in front of WISPs
> and their abilities to meet customer demands. I'll do all I can, both within
> my capacity for my employer, or simply as a person who's been around long
> enough to be able to broker useful connections, to help you succeed.

> And finally, to those of you who lead and actively support WISPA (including
> the industry's best non-WISP ally, Steve Coran), you are doing amazing work.
> May WISPA continue to be as powerful a voice for the community as it moves
> beyond the Rick Harnish era.

> Merry Christmas to most, Happy Chanukah to some, Happy Holidays to all.

> Sincerely,

> Patrick

> Patrick Leary

> Director Business Development, North America | Telrad Networks Ltd .

> M 727.501.3735 | Skype pleary

> See us on

> 
> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer
> viruses.
> 

> ___
> 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] Cambium vendor

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Marlon, 
Don't know about Grids... but you can use pretty much any antenna of your 
choice (Mimo), 

Ofcourse you have the Force110,
Itelite antennas also work .

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "marlon schafer (509-982-2181)" 
> To: memb...@wispa.org
> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2014 2:40:47 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Cambium vendor
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm trying out some Cambium gear.  So far it's faster than my MT gear at the
> same location.  But I'm soo range limited.  With the integrated solution
> I'm only able to get about 2 miles, even that's a bit of a stretch when the
> noise levels are high.
> 
> I really need to find an external antenna solution.  Preferably a grid so I
> don't need such a heavy duty mount.
> 
> Anyone know of what I can use with the ePMP line?  If you are a vendor
> please call me so we can talk about what will fit my needs.  509.988.0260
> 
> Thanks!
> marlon
> 
> ___
> 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] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Chuckle :)

You all don't know who Fred is :)

He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :)

I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a  dejavu !!!

What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is 
pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline 
side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II 
regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm)  to see the 
'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a 
way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to 
grant forbearance could be re-presented to them

And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think 
of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world).

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Eric Tykwinski" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
> 
> Fred,
> 
> It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem.
> I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the problem
> really is.
> Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public activist
> side,
> but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see
> that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run.
> 
> Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally
> stick, well that’s up in the air.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Eric Tykwinski
> TrueNet, Inc.
> P: 610-429-8300
> F: 610-429-3222
> 
> > On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment!
> > 
> > Kevin
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Fred Goldstein" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
> > 
> > 
> >> On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote:
> >>> I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous.
> >>> 
> >>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9
> >>> 
> >>> I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support
> >>> and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying
> >>> to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems
> >>> carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might
> >>> be on the "hate it" side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for
> >>> your answer and have a fantastic day!
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer.
> >> 
> >> "Broadband" is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate
> >> nouns.  Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse
> >> -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so
> >> different people use it to have different referents.
> >> 
> >> I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given
> >> that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last
> >> month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC.  And I've
> >> been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told
> >> the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they
> >> could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language
> >> convention.  El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high
> >> speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of
> >> the facility, including Internet service delivered over it.  (If you
> >> don't know Spanish, "el radio" is a device and "la radio" is a
> >> program.)  But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications
> >> component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it.
> >> 
> >> The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law
> >> (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common
> >> carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply
> >> sell La Broad

Re: [WISPA] When the power goes off

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Doing this is more of an method than a product.

If you have dual power supply server, then you can plug one psu on battery 
backup, and the other on ac main... monitor the status of PSU via snmp... is 
one example

If you are using Mikrotik routers, you can use the dual power feature on 
them i.e. power via dc port as well as poe in... MT will use the higher 
voltage as primary... have one from Battery and other from ac power... monitor 
via snmp or your own script. (such solutions have been documented before).

If you have an old router that you can plug in to ac power, setup an ip on it, 
and use your ping monitor to see if it is up... Called the canary method.

You can also do something more creative such as described by Greg Sowell.
http://gregsowell.com/?p=2093


Hopefully these give you some ideas.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "OOLLC-Support" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:20:15 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] When the power goes off
> 
> Does anyone have a simple solution for when the circuit-breaker gets
> kicked?  I would very much like to have the system call me on the phone
> to let me know when the server has lost power.  Does anyone have a cheap
> way to solve this?
> ___
> 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] AC Voltage Regulator??

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I have used the LR-1200 to have clean power in-doors on the bench (When we used 
to do computer work). 

And yes they get very hot... if you are going to deploy them in locations where 
there is not good ventilation, I suggest you size them with a factor of 2 or 
3... i.e. if you need 600va load then put in a bigger unit that can handle 
1200va or more 

and of-course, you may very much need forced air ventilation. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Steve Barnes" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:07:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AC Voltage Regulator??

> Faisal do you use these. I have tried them in the past and when they are
> working to handle enough clean power for a whole tower they seem to get
> really hot.

> I also do not recommend running them off a poor generator to get cleaner
> power. The one I had melted after 2 hours.

> Steven Barnes

> GM

> PCSWIN.com

> Howard LLC.

> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:55 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AC Voltage Regulator??

> You can do a battery backup unit, like suggested by Sean H.

> However to answer your question, APC makes a whole line of Voltage
> Regulators, which are the product to fix this type of issue.

> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313&_nkw=apc+voltage+regulators&_sacat=0

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

> > From: "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com >
> 
> > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> 
> > Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:30:09 AM
> 
> > Subject: [WISPA] AC Voltage Regulator??
> 

> > We are having some issues lately on a couple of sites. AC mains is dropping
> > below 90 vac, anyone recommends a good Voltage Regulator?
> 

> > Gino A. Villarini
> 

> > President
> 

> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 

> > www.aeronetpr.com
> 

> > @aeronetpr
> 

> > ___
> 
> > 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] AC Voltage Regulator??

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Then look for AVR (Automatic Voltage Regulators)... and pick one based on the 
specs.. 

e.g. 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/POWERBRIGHT-SVC3000-VOLTAGE-REGULATOR-3000-WATT-AUTOMATIC-SERVO-MOTOR-AC-NEW-/321211901033?pt=US_Power_Inverters_&hash=item4ac9b8a46
 9 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 10:06:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AC Voltage Regulator??

> We have a APC ups on site, problem is voltage drops below the UPS threshold
> (90 vac) I need something that would regulate from 60-70 vac upwards

> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com
> @aeronetpr

> From: Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us >
> Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Date: Monday, November 10, 2014 at 10:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AC Voltage Regulator??

> Apc battery backup. They will trim and boost for you.

> We have a site that drops to 100vac in the winter when the heater kicks on
> (old building and wiring :-/ ) the apc boost the load to 120.

> On Monday, November 10, 2014, Gino Villarini < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:

> > We are having some issues lately on a couple of sites. AC mains is dropping
> > below 90 vac, anyone recommends a good Voltage Regulator?
> 

> > Gino A. Villarini
> 
> > President
> 
> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 
> > www.aeronetpr.com
> 
> > @aeronetpr
> 

> ___
> 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] AC Voltage Regulator??

[Faisal Imtiaz]

You can do a battery backup unit, like suggested by Sean H. 

However to answer your question, APC makes a whole line of Voltage Regulators, 
which are the product to fix this type of issue. 

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313&_nkw=apc+voltage+regulators&_sacat=0
 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 9:30:09 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] AC Voltage Regulator??

> We are having some issues lately on a couple of sites. AC mains is dropping
> below 90 vac, anyone recommends a good Voltage Regulator?

> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com
> @aeronetpr

> ___
> 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] Off topic sorta power question....

[Faisal Imtiaz]

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf
 

This document has info on what you are looking for. 

The configuration you describe is called dual / split phase ... which happens 
to be the most common configuration on how power is delivered to our homes in 
the US. 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Scott Carullo" 
> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" , sc...@brevardwireless.com,
> "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 2:40:35 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question

> Ok... sorry to beat this horse but I'm apparently not following you.
> There are three lugs my shiny new male plug has.
> 1-120v leg1 from single phase source
> 2-120v leg2 from single phase source
> 3- Neutral wire which bonds to ground at building main panel from power
> company.
> Cloud Core has three wires feeding the power supply.
> 1-120v leg (1 or 2) from single phase source
> 2-Neutral
> 3-Ground
> A) I completely understand how I can take a single 120v wire from leg1 or
> leg2 of the power source and then take the neutral to both neutral and
> ground of the router power supply and make this work - thats easy - but not
> code.
> B) I also understand how I could take a neutral, a ground and one hot wire
> with voltage anywhere from 110-250v and it will work with cloud core power
> supply. (but not I do not have this configuration at source)
> C) I do not understand how you can take two hots and a neutral and turn that
> into anything (just by using a cable) that the router can use unless that
> cable is doing nothing more than what I described above in "A"
> Thanks
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102

> From : "Faisal Imtiaz" 
> Sent : Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:53 AM
> To : sc...@brevardwireless.com, "WISPA General List" 
> Subject : Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question
> Here is the info on AC power arrangement
> http://www.oempanels.com/what-does-single-and-three-phase-power-mean
> The CCR specs show it having :
> Dual power supplies for redundancy, 110-250V input, IEC connectors
> which means that, you can use either 110 or 220 or 240 on the same power
> supply.
> All you would have to do is match the power cables...
> Regards.
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> - Original Message -

> > From: "Scott Carullo" 
> 
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:55:36 PM
> 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question
> 
> > Cloud core. There is a difference between having a hot (80-250v), a neutral
> > and a ground, vs. a neutral and two 120v hots. I believe the router can
> > handle more than 120v but not in the sense that its being delivered on two
> > 120v legs with a neutral and no ground. Its a 3 prong twist lock type
> > receptacle. If there is a way I'd like to be educated (aside from pulling
> > one of the hots and hooking the neutral to ground as well on my new
> > non-code
> > engineered power cable. Educate me.
> 
> > I think I'm just going to plug it into the normal 120v 20amp plug on the
> > wall
> > behind the rack though, seems like the best way forward considering the
> > options I was just trying to accommodate the customers request prior to
> > plan
> > B.
> 
> > Thanks
> 
> > Scott Carullo
> 
> > Technical Operations
> 
> > 855-FLSPEED x102
> 

> > From : "TJ Trout" 
> 
> > Sent : Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:21 PM
> 
> > To : "WISPA General List" 
> 
> > Subject : Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question
> 

> > Everything can use 240 now days probably just need a new power cord
> 
> > On Nov 5, 2014 12:10 PM, "Bob M" < lakel...@gbcx.net > wrote:
> 
> > > Keep in mind that it is breakered for 240. Splitting the legs after a 240
> > > vac
> > > circuit breaker is not code.
> > 
> 
> > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
> > 
> 

> > >  Original message 
> > 
> 
> > > From: Brett Woollum < br...@tekify.com >
> > 
> 
> > > Date:11/05/2014 12:00 PM (GMT-05:00)
>

Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question....

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Here is the info on AC power arrangement 

http://www.oempanels.com/what-does-single-and-three-phase-power-mean 

The CCR specs show it having : 
Dual power supplies for redundancy, 110-250V input, IEC connectors 

which means that, you can use either 110 or 220 or 240 on the same power 
supply. 
All you would have to do is match the power cables... 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Scott Carullo" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 11:55:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question

> Cloud core. There is a difference between having a hot (80-250v), a neutral
> and a ground, vs. a neutral and two 120v hots. I believe the router can
> handle more than 120v but not in the sense that its being delivered on two
> 120v legs with a neutral and no ground. Its a 3 prong twist lock type
> receptacle. If there is a way I'd like to be educated (aside from pulling
> one of the hots and hooking the neutral to ground as well on my new non-code
> engineered power cable. Educate me.
> I think I'm just going to plug it into the normal 120v 20amp plug on the wall
> behind the rack though, seems like the best way forward considering the
> options I was just trying to accommodate the customers request prior to plan
> B.
> Thanks
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102

> From : "TJ Trout" 
> Sent : Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:21 PM
> To : "WISPA General List" 
> Subject : Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question

> Everything can use 240 now days probably just need a new power cord
> On Nov 5, 2014 12:10 PM, "Bob M" < lakel...@gbcx.net > wrote:
> > Keep in mind that it is breakered for 240. Splitting the legs after a 240
> > vac
> > circuit breaker is not code.
> 
> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
> 

> >  Original message 
> 
> > From: Brett Woollum < br...@tekify.com >
> 
> > Date:11/05/2014 12:00 PM (GMT-05:00)
> 
> > To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question
> 
> > Tim,
> 

> > In most cases you can split the hot leads on the 240v outlet into two 120v
> > circuits. There are adapter pigtails for this if you don't want to hardware
> > it.
> 

> > >From memory, our local hardware store sells these (in the US).
> 

> > A quick Google search revealed this:
> > http://www.wayfair.com/Champion-Power-Equipment-Generator-Y-Adapter-for-Champion-Power-Equipment-48035-L771-K~CXP1067.html?refid=GX50899353420-CXP1067&device=c&ptid=75696510540&gclid=CJ_Fktv348ECFUdffgod3z4ANw
> 
> > Brett Woollum
> 
> > Senior Sales Engineer
> 
> > br...@tekify.com
> 

> > Tekify Broadband Internet Services
> 
> > Web: http://www.tekify.com
> 
> > Phone: 510-266-5800 , ext 6200
> 

> > From: "Tim Way" < t...@way.vg >
> 
> > To: sc...@brevardwireless.com , "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 7:50:52 AM
> 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Off topic sorta power question
> 
> > I would think something like this might be the safer option:
> > http://www.certifiedmtp.com/step-up-step-down-transformer-500w/?gclid=CNWj1Kro48ECFQipaQodB74ADQ
> 
> > That said I'm not an electrician and I think that question might be best
> > answered by one.
> 
> > Tim Way
> 
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Scott Carullo < sc...@brevardwireless.com >
> > wrote:
> 
> > > I need to place a 120v normal 1U router in a rack that only has 240v
> > > twist
> > > lock receptacles available for power. I need to put a UPS there so I just
> > > looked for a 240v UPS with the right plugs but because they are made for
> > > a
> > > lot larger load they were way bigger (and more expensive) than what I was
> > > looking for. SO... anyone have a better way to do this? I have considered
> > > taking one leg and bonding the neutral and ground, but.
> > 
> 
> > > Thanks
> > 
> 
> > > Scott Carullo
> > 
> 
> > > Technical Operations
> > 
> 
> > > 855-FLSPEED 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
> 

> > ___
> 
> > 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] here comes 100 Gpon

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Optics are all tune-able, by design... 

It is a common practice in the USA and West to price them high and purposely 
make then non-tunable, because they are a very high margin item. 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Carlos Alcantar" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:17:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon

> I hope the optics on ont side will be tunable as this would be a complete
> nightmare of having to have different ont’s for different waves.

> Carlos Alcantar
> Race Communications / Race Team Member
> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com

> From: Paul Conlin < pcon...@blazebroadband.com >
> Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM
> To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon

> At the show Huawei said the upcoming 10GPON chip set was theirs. They may be
> the only vendor big enough to do their own cost effectively.

> Note this is actually 25x10 GPON per customer. 100x40 per strand. 4 waves.
> Still impressive but will require some juggling of ONT's to balance load as
> first gen ONT's will see only one wave.

> PC
> Blaze Broadband

> On October 28, 2014 12:42:36 PM EDT, Carlos Alcantar < car...@race.com >
> wrote:
> > I’m guessing when this actually makes it to market you will have everyone
> > not
> > far behind since most use the same chipsets.
> 

> > Carlos Alcantar
> 
> > Race Communications / Race Team Member
> 
> > 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> 
> > Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
> 

> > From: Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com >
> 
> > Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> 
> > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM
> 
> > To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon
> 

> > You saw it was Huawei right?
> 

> > Josh Luthman
> 
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> 
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> 
> > 1100 Wayne St
> 
> > Suite 1337
> 
> > Troy, OH 45373
> 
> > On Oct 28, 2014 11:17 AM, "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:
> 

> > > No one…
> > 
> 

> > > Gino A. Villarini
> > 
> 
> > > President
> > 
> 
> > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> > 
> 
> > > www.aeronetpr.com
> > 
> 
> > > @aeronetpr
> > 
> 

> > > From: Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net >
> > 
> 
> > > Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM
> > 
> 
> > > To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon
> > 
> 

> > > Stolen from? :-p
> > 
> 

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

> > > From: "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com >
> > 
> 
> > > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:58:42 AM
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon
> > 
> 

> > > http://bbpmag.com/wordpress2/2014/10/huawei-announces-100g-pon-optical-access-technology/
> > 
> 

> > > Gino A. Villarini
> > 
> 
> > > President
> > 
> 
> > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> > 
> 
> > > www.aeronetpr.com
> > 
> 
> > > @aeronetpr
> > 
> 

> > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > 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

Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>> Huawei is now a technology leader 

Yes, Olufemi, that is true. While most of the world knows it very well, but 
folks in the USA have a very hard time accepting this fact. 

Huawei is the largest supplier of CO Switches/ Telecom Equipment in the world. 
Being a Chinese company they have the mfg. advantage, and also because the rest 
of the world cannot pay the high prices of similar equipment made by USA 
Companies. In the last 10 years they have been dominating Africa, Asia, Latin 
America etc. etc. 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Olufemi Adalemo" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 7:14:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon

> Believe it or not, Huawei is now a technology leader

> - - -
> Olufemi Adalemo
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com

> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Paul Conlin < pcon...@blazebroadband.com >
> wrote:

> > At the show Huawei said the upcoming 10GPON chip set was theirs. They may
> > be
> > the only vendor big enough to do their own cost effectively.
> 

> > Note this is actually 25x10 GPON per customer. 100x40 per strand. 4 waves.
> > Still impressive but will require some juggling of ONT's to balance load as
> > first gen ONT's will see only one wave.
> 

> > PC
> 
> > Blaze Broadband
> 

> > On October 28, 2014 12:42:36 PM EDT, Carlos Alcantar < car...@race.com >
> > wrote:
> 
> > > I’m guessing when this actually makes it to market you will have everyone
> > > not
> > > far behind since most use the same chipsets.
> > 
> 

> > > Carlos Alcantar
> > 
> 
> > > Race Communications / Race Team Member
> > 
> 
> > > 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> > 
> 
> > > Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
> > 
> 

> > > From: Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com >
> > 
> 
> > > Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 8:19 AM
> > 
> 
> > > To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon
> > 
> 

> > > You saw it was Huawei right?
> > 
> 

> > > Josh Luthman
> > 
> 
> > > Office: 937-552-2340
> > 
> 
> > > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 
> 
> > > 1100 Wayne St
> > 
> 
> > > Suite 1337
> > 
> 
> > > Troy, OH 45373
> > 
> 
> > > On Oct 28, 2014 11:17 AM, "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:
> > 
> 

> > > > No one…
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > Gino A. Villarini
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > President
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > www.aeronetpr.com
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > @aeronetpr
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > From: Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > Stolen from? :-p
> > > 
> > 
> 

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

> > > > From: "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 8:58:42 AM
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Subject: [WISPA] here comes 100 Gpon
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > http://bbpmag.com/wordpress2/2014/10/huawei-announces-100g-pon-optical-access-technology/
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > Gin

Re: [WISPA] Anyone with wholesale contact in Level 3?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Gino, 

May I suggest you re-phrase your question to... 

Anyone with a wholesale contact at Level3, who actually responds to inquires 
and can get things done ? 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 4:19:16 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Anyone with wholesale contact in Level 3?

> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com
> @aeronetpr

> ___
> 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] Ticketing software

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>>> Our home grown system is actually both billing and work flow but does not 
>>> really include a clean way to track calls, it allows for assigning tasks to 
>>> field workers but does not have a help desk orientation. 

If that is the case, it sounds like you have development resources/ skills 
in-house, you might want to pickup a book on RT ticket system 
(http://it-ebooks.info/book/394/) and try to integrate it with what you have in 
place. 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Brian Wilson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:28:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ticketing software

> Usually I think "organic" means the system was not designed but grew on its
> own. References to fertilizers might not be completely off base though.

> Our home grown system is actually both billing and work flow but does not
> really include a clean way to track calls, it allows for assigning tasks to
> field workers but does not have a help desk orientation.

> Brian

> ___
> 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] Network Monitoring Program

[Faisal Imtiaz]

They all have their strengths and weakness 

If you are in a mood to evaluate other packages... 
take a look at these two: 
zenoss 
observium 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Justin Wilson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 8:54:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring Program

> For most of our folks we use a combination of the Dude from Mikrotik and
> Nagios, and usually throw in Cacti. The dude is easy to understand, doubles
> as network documentation, and is good for the CSR folks to look at a glance.
> Dude can also replace Cacti if you desire. It just doesn’t create pretty
> graphs. We mainly use cacti for co-lo and bandwidth customers. It calculates
> 95th percentile internally. You can also setup cacti to graph all kinds of
> stuff you don’t necessarily want to monitor, but are helpful to keep track
> of. For example, wireless signal/ccq/jitter/whatever, BGP routes,
> temperature, voltage, and other SNMP data.

> Nagios is great at knowing the difference between latency and a link actually
> being down. It has a ton of extra knowledge about stuff you don’t find in
> the Dude. Nagios has a learning curve for sure, but it’s worth it. If you
> use the newer versions or even the paid version that learning curve isn’t as
> steep. Nagios also can do distributed monitoring to split up load or make
> your monitoring a little more fault tolerant.

> My monitoring box has a VM with Dude, a VM with Nagios, and a VM with Cacti.
> The only reason Cacti is separated is because I like to use cacti-ez. It
> sets everything up and away it goes.

> Justin

> --
> Justin Wilson < j...@mtin.net >
> http://www.mtin.net
> Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers
> http://www.thebrotherswisp.com
> Podcast about xISP topics

> From: Brian Wilson < br...@wildsong.biz >
> Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Date: Friday, August 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network Monitoring Program

> I have inherited a very old version of Nagios and we also use The Dude from
> Mikrotik.

> That's what we have installed here right now, not a recommendation. ;-)

> I am very interested to hear what other people are using, too.
> ​
> Brian Wilson
> CDS Wireless, Santa Rosa CA
> ___ 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] Ticketing software

[Faisal Imtiaz]

The answer depends on what you want it to do ? 

Most billing packages (ISP) have some sort of a ticketing system with them... 

If you are looking for email centeric ticketing system, look at Kayako... 

keep in mind that it is always desirable to have customer related tickets in 
the same system as your billing system.. 

(I guess what I am saying is while you are asking about a ticketing system, 
maybe you need to be looking for a billing system which has ticketing built 
in) 

:) 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Brian Wilson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 10:00:11 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Ticketing software

> What are people using for customer support ticketing software?

> We currently use a combination of pink notes and email.
> (and I wish I was joking.)

> --
> Brian Wilson
> CDS Wireless, Santa Rosa CA

> ___
> 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] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Gino, 

You need to talk to Jamie on how to capitalize on the noise floor. 

Maybe he can develop something that uses sub-carriers which can use the ambient 
noise floor to bounce / carry the traffic ... 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 10:11:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?

> Approaching -60

> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com
> @aeronetpr

> From: Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net >
> Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Date: Sunday, August 10, 2014 at 9:10 PM
> To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?

> Be-careful for what you ask for...

> Gino has to do his calc, by setting the noise floor to -72

> We are fast approaching something similar in downtown Miami..

> :)

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

> - Original Message -

> > From: "Jaime Fink" < ja...@mimosa.co >
> 
> > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> 
> > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:49:28 PM
> 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?
> 

> > Hi Gino,
> 

> > First, thanks for using the Design tool! Sorry for the delay in response,
> > one
> > of my colleagues appears to be caught in the WISPA members list first time
> > use jail syndrome ;)
> 

> > The noise floor row in the link budget is not set statically to –95 dBm. It
> > is actually calculated based on average temperature at the location, the
> > selected bandwidth, and the receiver noise figure. This is the Thermal
> > Noise
> > Floor for the receiver to give it a more accurate description.
> 

> > The intent with the Interference Loss value was to allow users the ability
> > to
> > define additional noise above the thermal noise floor.
> 

> > What we are discussing internally and would welcome the rest of the group
> > to
> > weigh in on, is to rename “Interference Loss” to “Noise Floor Override” and
> > replace the calculated (Thermal) Noise Floor with the override value if it
> > is greater. This would allow a higher value to be specified where you know
> > there is a higher noise floor present where the radio will be deployed.
> 

> > Please keep the comments and suggestions coming, we have tons of work going
> > on in this tool to keep adding and improving constantly.
> 

> > There is a direct feedback form on the Design tool on the bottom left hand
> > corner, that is the quickest way to get straight to our Engineers and make
> > sure we don’t miss anything.
> 

> > Cheers!
> 

> > Jaime Fink • Mimosa • Chief Product Officer
> 
> > 300 Orchard City Dr Ste 100 • Campbell • CA 95008 • www.mimosa.co
> 

> > This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
> > use
> > of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
> > by
> > others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
> > authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by
> > reply
> > email and delete all copies of this message.
> 

> > On Aug 7, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Gino Villarini < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:
> 

> > > Where do adjust the noise figure for real capacity measurements? Noise
> > > loss?
> > > Whats that?
> > 
> 

> > > Gino A. Villarini
> > 
> 
> > > President
> > 
> 
> > > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> > 
> 
> > > www.aeronetpr.com
> > 
> 
> > > @aeronetpr
> > 
> 

> > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > 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

Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Be-careful for what you ask for... 

Gino has to do his calc, by setting the noise floor to -72 

We are fast approaching something similar in downtown Miami.. 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Jaime Fink" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:49:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?

> Hi Gino,

> First, thanks for using the Design tool! Sorry for the delay in response, one
> of my colleagues appears to be caught in the WISPA members list first time
> use jail syndrome ;)

> The noise floor row in the link budget is not set statically to –95 dBm. It
> is actually calculated based on average temperature at the location, the
> selected bandwidth, and the receiver noise figure. This is the Thermal Noise
> Floor for the receiver to give it a more accurate description.

> The intent with the Interference Loss value was to allow users the ability to
> define additional noise above the thermal noise floor.

> What we are discussing internally and would welcome the rest of the group to
> weigh in on, is to rename “Interference Loss” to “Noise Floor Override” and
> replace the calculated (Thermal) Noise Floor with the override value if it
> is greater. This would allow a higher value to be specified where you know
> there is a higher noise floor present where the radio will be deployed.

> Please keep the comments and suggestions coming, we have tons of work going
> on in this tool to keep adding and improving constantly.

> There is a direct feedback form on the Design tool on the bottom left hand
> corner, that is the quickest way to get straight to our Engineers and make
> sure we don’t miss anything.

> Cheers!

> Jaime Fink • Mimosa • Chief Product Officer
> 300 Orchard City Dr Ste 100 • Campbell • CA 95008 • www.mimosa.co

> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
> of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
> others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
> authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
> email and delete all copies of this message.

> On Aug 7, 2014, at 6:01 AM, Gino Villarini < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:

> > Where do adjust the noise figure for real capacity measurements? Noise
> > loss?
> > Whats that?
> 

> > Gino A. Villarini
> 
> > President
> 
> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 
> > www.aeronetpr.com
> 
> > @aeronetpr
> 

> > ___
> 
> > 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] VoIP - Who is using successfully?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

We are. 

There are number of things to check for 

Not knowing much about your network setup 

Making assumption that your BH and AP's are not over loaded. 
Making assumption that your MT's are not over loaded 
Making assumption that your Queue mech. are not an issue... 
Making assumption that there is no packet loss on the network path from 
customer to the VOIP Provider's (SIP & RTP proxy) 

Basic fundamentals are as follows:- (think of peeling an onion, starting from 
the core going outwards). 

SIP Voice is two types of packets... SIP Signaling and RTP (Real time Packets / 
Voice or video) 
Most providers will mark their outbound SIP & RTP with appropriate DSCP (qos) 
markings (feel free to google for info). 
Most ATA's will mark outbound SIP & RPT with appropriate DSCP (802.1p qos) 
markings. 

Most Wireless Radio Mfg, when they support QOS, they will respect these 
markings, and handle traffic appropriately, (unless they run into other 
issues,, e.g. high pps rates etc). 
http://wiki.ubnt.com/AirMax_-_QoS_DSCP/TOS_Mappings 

FYI, with UBNT qos handling varied with Firmware Version...e.g. " BOLD - 
special mapping cases starting from v5.5.4 Before v5.5.4 DSCP 46 go to WME 
Video, DSCP 26 go to WME Best Effort." 

-- 
Double Check the ATA's QOS Packet Marking...to make sure that Default DSCP 
Marking is what you are expecting... 

--- 

The other thing you need to check on is Jitter buffer settings. you may 
want to enable it and set it for for something like 100 to 150, to see if it 
improves stuff. 

-
 

FYI, the biggest problem with VOIP and Fixed Wireless, is Packet Loss, and 
Jitter (this is more troublesome .. some packets arrive on time, other are 
delayed, and some are out of order) 

== 

Feel free to ping me off list if you need more info. or have questions. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Matt Brendle" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:56:33 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] VoIP - Who is using successfully?

> So a question for the masses. We are selling VoIP services and the number of
> Support Calls we get about poor performance is more than I would expect. Our
> basic setup is UBNT backhauls and APs, Mikrotik infrastructure routers, and
> CISCO/Linksys ATAs. Primarily Vitelity accounts. We get complaints of
> choppiness and other issues, and I wanted to see what others are using
> successfully. I am currently making a test procedure to try to find out
> where the issue is, but if anybody has success stories and example setups
> that would be great.

> I know that is a rather broad question, but I want to make this work and get
> our Support Calls down.

> Matt – NC 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] mikrotik - bridge - van - eoip questions

[Faisal Imtiaz]

If you keep these rules in mind, you will be able to sort out the confusion ...

MT are routers..
Each Physical Port is an interface.
   Vlan is tied to a Port (as such ports are Trunk Ports), and each VLAN/Port 
Combination is an virtual interface.
If you want to make Two Interfaces talk to each others as one then you need to 
create a Bridge and put in the physical or virtual interface, in that bridge.


---
e.g. if you define a vlan 20 on port 2 and  define a vlan 20 on port 3, each of 
these two are independent virtual interfaces... i.e. vlan20/pt2 will not talk 
to vlan20/pt3...(but you can route between then as if they were two separate 
ports)

If you want both of these vlan20's to be the same network, then you need to 
create a bridge called brvlan20, and put the two vlan20 in it.

Hope it makes sense ?


Any time you use a bridge to connect (virtual interface or physical interfaces) 
together, then all IP services need to be assigned to the Bridge, so that they 
are visible on all interfaces in the bridge group.



BTW, a bridge is also a virtual interface, not tied to any port it is 
commonly used in this manner as a loopback interface.. (you can assign a /32, 
i.e. single ip to such an interface)




Hope this helps ...


Regards.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org, a...@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:25:51 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] mikrotik - bridge - van - eoip questions
> 
> So, new question.
> 
> Special project.
> 
> "cpe" Router has a management ip
> "cpe" Router has a separate vlan piped to it as well
> 
> I had lan -> bridged -> vlan, with vlan assigned to wan interface. This
> gave me a layer2 tunnel. My problem here, is that I don't have much real
> visibility or testing capability over the separate vlan.
> 
> So I'd like to create an EOIP tunnel between the devices over the
> separate vlan, but I'm running into issues figuring out what goes where.
> 
> So you've got a lan interface, wan interface, vlan that sits on the wan,
> eoip tunnel, and a bridge or two, and another ip that goes on the vlan
> or eoip tunnel for them to communicate over the vlan.
> 
> Soo:
> 
> Create vlan
> assign vlan to wan interface
> create eoip tunnel
> assign ip address to vlan interface ?
> bridge ( lan, vlan, eoip tunnel) ?
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Josh Reynolds
> 
> Chief Information Officer
> SPITwSPOTS
> 
> ___
> 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] Happy Father's Day

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Happy Father's Day to all the Dad's.

Hope you have a great enjoyable, un-eventful day.

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] 4g router device

[Faisal Imtiaz]

The Cell data Rate plans can get expensive if that is not an issue, yes 
this will work. 

However you can also consider building them a small network using 900mhz eg to 
view the camera or tie this to their existing internet (home or nearby) . 

Just a thought. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "heith" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Friday, June 6, 2014 5:58:58 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] 4g router device

> A while back in Vegas Baltic Networks had a mikrotik router that operated on
> Verizon or Sprint. We were told it could be used for a back up at a remote
> site if you lost standard access through your regular network. In the past
> week I have had 2 ranchers hit me for a solution where they could check
> their water tanks with camera. The ranch property is leased ground so there
> is no standard wireline or wisp in the area and is way out of our service
> area.

> Has anyone done anything similar to this? From what we gathered it would use
> an existing cell plan for the data usage. I also heard that it could be used
> on Verizon & Sprint, but AT&T may be an issue. These places all have power
> at the tank/pumps, so we were just thinking a ubnt camera and this device,
> maybe a small battery backup, but we were just unsure if the router was a
> viable product for this application

> 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

Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

It would go by the Account/invoice 

Sate of Texas/ Tax Dept. spells out rather clearly in detail on how they 
want this type of situation handled. 

If you want to know, just google for State of Texas Communication Taxes ... 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Matt Hoppes" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:51:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

> What if you sell the customer two bonded connections for $25 each? What
> happens then?

> Sent from my iPad

> On Jun 4, 2014, at 2:35 PM, Cameron Crum < cc...@wispmon.com > wrote:

> > Sam,
> 

> > I know when we were a wisp here in TX, we collected taxes on everything
> > over
> > $25 and all of our TX customers do it this way. So yes, tax on the service
> > plan is charged at the state+local rates (if any) on just the amount over
> > $25. All other services/products are taxed on the full amount of the
> > service
> > or product.
> 

> > Cameron
> 

> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Sam < w...@csilogan.com > wrote:
> 

> > > Thank you to everyone for your thoughts about my question. If any of you
> > 
> 
> > > are in Texas or New Mexico, are you currently collecting taxes from your
> > 
> 
> > > customers? I'm reading online that the first $25 of service fees are
> > 
> 
> > > exempt from taxes, meaning (if I'm understanding this correctly) that it
> > 
> 
> > > you charge say $40 a month, you'd have to collect sales tax on $15 of
> > 
> 
> > > that charge. Or is that not the way it works?
> > 
> 

> > > Thanks again everyone! (Hope everyone in the Midwest made it through
> > 
> 
> > > that storm last night we had 114 MPH straight-line winds in and all
> > 
> 
> > > around Omaha NE.
> > 
> 

> > > Sam
> > 
> 

> > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > 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

Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

--
Under the grandfather clause included in the Internet Tax Freedom Act, Texas is 
currently collecting a tax on Internet access charges over $25.00 per month. 
Texas collected tax on internet access prior to the enactment of ITFA under the 
"Taxables Services" provision of its Tax Code, see older § 151.0101(a). Texas 
has refined its tax code to define "Internet access service", include it under 
"Taxable Services" and exempted the first $25.00 on a monthly basis, See 
current Texas Tax Code § 151.325 & 151.0101(a)
---

and also listed in detail...

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=N&p_rloc=166385&p_tloc=14689&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=34&pt=&ch=3&rl=365

-

Don't be afraid of picking up the phone and calling the State's Tax Dept. and 
speaking with their Legal Staff, for guidance, they are obligated to assist you 
with the info, and they cannot hold your questions against you.

That is one of the best ways to get accurate legal advice at no charge / cost 
to you.





Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Sam" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:52:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax
> 
> Thank you to everyone for your thoughts about my question. If any of you
> are in Texas or New Mexico, are you currently collecting taxes from your
> customers? I'm reading online that the first $25 of service fees are
> exempt from taxes, meaning (if I'm understanding this correctly) that it
> you charge say $40 a month, you'd have to collect sales tax on $15 of
> that charge. Or is that not the way it works?
> 
> Thanks again everyone! (Hope everyone in the Midwest made it through
> that storm last night we had 114 MPH straight-line winds in and all
> around Omaha NE.
> 
> Sam
> 
> ___
> 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] Sales Tax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1431 

something is in the works to make this Federal Exemption permanent...it is not 
a done deal though... 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "James Howard" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 9:33:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

> I read online that the Federal exemption is set to expire this fall. Does
> anyone know if it’s been extended?

> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 10:30 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

> Yes, please do forward it .

> I believe you are confusing a few items together...

> Let me see if I can clarify:-

> 1. One needs to consult your State Taxing Authority, to determine what type
> of Taxes you should be COLLECTING on behalf of the State , and REMITTING to
> them, NO TWO STATES ARE ALIKE !

> 2. One needs to "distinguish" between what they are selling to their
> customers !.. Internet Access / PTP Transport / VOIP / etc. These three
> items are the most commonly taxed items. Some States it is Sales Tax, Other
> States it is Communication Taxes, there can also be a local County / City
> component... (Note: There is Federal Law on the Books which exempts ANY kind
> of Tax Collection on INTERNET SERVICE (only, it does not apply to PTP
> Transport), with the exception of what was already in place by the 10
> Grandfathered States...)

> 3. If you are providing VOIP services / Telephone Services or Interstate
> services, you have to File with the FCC, and they determine if you are
> Eligible for them to tax you for USF.. (Very important note.. USF is a TAX
> on Communication Services Providers ONLY... no one else, not end users, not
> customers etc However the LAW allows a Communication Carrier to RECOVER
> the USF Tax equivalent, from it's customer's Interstate / Long Distance
> services. (Lots of little if's and or buts here)..lets not get into the
> habit of confusing the tax with the recovery fee, they are related, but not
> the same !..)

> 4. If you are a BUYER of Long Haul Transport, and or any Voice/LD Services
> from another Carrier, You have the honor of Paying That Carrier their USF
> Recovery Fee... (This is not a tax on you !!!, but you get to pay it).
> However if you are a USF Contributing Eligible Carrier, who is not
> de-minimus, i.e. you are sending money to USF , then you can use your 499
> ID, to get yourself OUT OF PAYING other Carriers USF Recovery Fee. (and
> there may be one or two other entities with similar exemptions).

> One has to be very careful when using the word TAX as in State Taxes or
> Federal Taxes, because if these are not Collected and Remitted in the
> prescribed manner, one is guilt of a very big crimeThis is the major
> reason why a lot of Telecom Bills will list extra items as FEES... not
> TAXES

> Hope this helps. Sorry to come across harsh and blunt, but what you
> originally wrote, was totally off...

> Regards.

> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

> - Original Message -

> > From: "Josh Reynolds" < j...@spitwspots.com >
> 
> > To: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:21:46 PM
> 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax
> 

> > I am going to forward this to both our FCC lawyer, and local lawyer, to get
> > their opinions on this.
> 

> > We've been down this road several years ago I believe. I'll let everyone
> > know
> > the results.
> 

> > For the records, we do not have interstate transport to us, just
> > intrastate,
> > so we don't pay into any USF funds in any way, shape, or form... at least
> > not directly. Nor are we a VOIP provider, so we don't charge end users of
> > our services USF taxes. We are required I believe, under Alaska law, to
> > charge sales tax on the Internet Access services we provide. Again, will
> > double check.
> 

> > I would leave "bluntness" to actual lawyers who have documented sources and
> > case laws.
> 

> > Josh Reynolds
> 
> > Chief Information Officer
> 
> > SPITwSPOTS
> 
> > j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
> 

> > On 06/03/2014 03:53 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> 

> > &

Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yes, please do forward it . 

I believe you are confusing a few items together... 

Let me see if I can clarify:- 

1. One needs to consult your State Taxing Authority, to determine what type of 
Taxes you should be COLLECTING on behalf of the State , and REMITTING to them, 
NO TWO STATES ARE ALIKE ! 

2. One needs to "distinguish" between what they are selling to their customers 
!.. Internet Access / PTP Transport / VOIP / etc. These three items are the 
most commonly taxed items. Some States it is Sales Tax, Other States it is 
Communication Taxes, there can also be a local County / City component... 
(Note: There is Federal Law on the Books which exempts ANY kind of Tax 
Collection on INTERNET SERVICE (only, it does not apply to PTP Transport), with 
the exception of what was already in place by the 10 Grandfathered States...) 

3. If you are providing VOIP services / Telephone Services or Interstate 
services, you have to File with the FCC, and they determine if you are Eligible 
for them to tax you for USF.. (Very important note.. USF is a TAX on 
Communication Services Providers ONLY... no one else, not end users, not 
customers etc However the LAW allows a Communication Carrier to RECOVER the 
USF Tax equivalent, from it's customer's Interstate / Long Distance services. 
(Lots of little if's and or buts here)..lets not get into the habit of 
confusing the tax with the recovery fee, they are related, but not the same 
!..) 

4. If you are a BUYER of Long Haul Transport, and or any Voice/LD Services from 
another Carrier, You have the honor of Paying That Carrier their USF Recovery 
Fee... (This is not a tax on you !!!, but you get to pay it). However if you 
are a USF Contributing Eligible Carrier, who is not de-minimus, i.e. you are 
sending money to USF , then you can use your 499 ID, to get yourself OUT OF 
PAYING other Carriers USF Recovery Fee. (and there may be one or two other 
entities with similar exemptions). 

One has to be very careful when using the word TAX as in State Taxes or Federal 
Taxes, because if these are not Collected and Remitted in the prescribed 
manner, one is guilt of a very big crimeThis is the major reason why a lot 
of Telecom Bills will list extra items as FEES... not TAXES 

Hope this helps. Sorry to come across harsh and blunt, but what you originally 
wrote, was totally off... 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:21:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

> I am going to forward this to both our FCC lawyer, and local lawyer, to get
> their opinions on this.

> We've been down this road several years ago I believe. I'll let everyone know
> the results.

> For the records, we do not have interstate transport to us, just intrastate,
> so we don't pay into any USF funds in any way, shape, or form... at least
> not directly. Nor are we a VOIP provider, so we don't charge end users of
> our services USF taxes. We are required I believe, under Alaska law, to
> charge sales tax on the Internet Access services we provide. Again, will
> double check.

> I would leave "bluntness" to actual lawyers who have documented sources and
> case laws.

> Josh Reynolds
> Chief Information Officer
> SPITwSPOTS
> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
> On 06/03/2014 03:53 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

> > My sincere apologies, Josh, for calling you out on this...
> 

> > What you have stated below is quite wrong I am sorry for being so
> > blunt..
> 

> > WISP's are not selling 'a service', at least not per State and Federal Law
> > definitions.
> 
> > Sales Taxes and Communication (services) Taxes, two different animals.
> 

> > USF is a TAX on Service Providers based on a very particular definition set
> > of services
> 

> > Paying your service providers for USF RECOVERY Fees is NOT = PAYING USF
> > TAXES
> 

> > Lot of verbiage, definitions, and it is rather important to be accurate is
> > what you are saying and how your are saying...
> 

> > :)
> 

> > Regards.
> 

> > Faisal Imtiaz
> 
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 
> > 7266 SW 48 Street
> 
> > Miami, FL 33155
> 
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 

> > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 

> > - Original Message -
> 

> > > From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> > 
> 
> > > To: wireless@wispa.org
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:02

Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

My sincere apologies, Josh, for calling you out on this... 

What you have stated below is quite wrong I am sorry for being so 
blunt.. 

WISP's are not selling 'a service', at least not per State and Federal Law 
definitions. 
Sales Taxes and Communication (services) Taxes, two different animals. 

USF is a TAX on Service Providers based on a very particular definition set of 
services 

Paying your service providers for USF RECOVERY Fees is NOT = PAYING USF TAXES 

Lot of verbiage, definitions, and it is rather important to be accurate is what 
you are saying and how your are saying... 

:) 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:02:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Sales Tax

> You're selling a service. Sales tax in most areas. If your have transport
> across state lines from a transport provider or your bandwidth provider, you
> may be responsible for USF taxes in certain cases.

> Josh Reynolds
> Chief Information Officer
> SPITwSPOTS
> j...@spitwspots.com | www.spitwspots.com
> On 06/03/2014 11:50 AM, Sam wrote:

> > Is there currently a requirement for a WISP (pure WISP - no VOIP, etc)
> 
> > to charge taxes of any sort, sales or otherwise? Or does that vary by
> 
> > location or state? The last time I was a WISP (long ago in a county far,
> 
> > far away) we did not have to charge/collect taxes from our customers.
> 

> > Thanks,
> 
> > Sam
> 
> > ___
> 
> > 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] Sales Tax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Varies by State.. 
I will suggest that you do some reading, googleing, start with Wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act

and also consult your state's tax site / office etc. for more specific details.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Sam" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:50:38 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Sales Tax
> 
> Is there currently a requirement for a WISP (pure WISP - no VOIP, etc)
> to charge taxes of any sort, sales or otherwise? Or does that vary by
> location or state? The last time I was a WISP (long ago in a county far,
> far away) we did not have to charge/collect taxes from our customers.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sam
> ___
> 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] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Nathan,

Can you share the recipe for running Asterisk on a Routerboard ?

On-list or off list will be greatly appreciated.

I am interested in testing this ...

Regards


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Nathan Anderson" 
> To: "sc...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General 
> List" , "Bryce
> Duchcherer" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 5:46:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> 
> Yeah, I've thought about trying a Raspberry Pi as a cheap, IP-only PBX.
> Should have more than enough "oomph" for a small office environment.
> 
> We have had great success running Asterisk directly on MikroTik RouterBoards,
> inside of a MetaROUTER VM.  Of course, both this solution and the Raspberry
> Pi can only be used in a pure IP environment.
> 
> Those Blackfin-based embedded Asterisk systems that Atcom et al. manufacture
> (http://www.rowetel.com/blog/?page_id=440) are also intriguing, but I
> haven't been able to find a good U.S.-based supplier/distributor.
> 
> -- Nathan
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:53 AM
> To: Bryce Duchcherer; sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> 
> Oh yeah - I should have noted - we have one running at customer site for 16
> phones and its a blueberry pie or whatever those things are called lol.
> Cost less than 100 bucks and we even have two network interfaces on them
> (one usb)
>  
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102
> 
>  <http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg>
>  
> 
> 
> From: "Bryce Duchcherer" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:16 PM
> To: "sc...@brevardwireless.com" , "WISPA General
> List" 
> Subject: RE: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
>  
> 
> I have one of these coming in to try out, they're dirt cheap and are supposed
> to be decent. They support up to 8 calls and are supposed to run on
> asterisk.
> 
> http://www.atcom.cn/IP02.html
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Bryce D
> 
> NETAGO
> 
>  
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 16:08
> To: WISPA General List; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> 
>  
> 
> I've never been a fan of anything grandstream has ever made so I wouldn't go
> there.  JMO
> 
>  
> 
> Get some other solution for the PBX (running your own software on a nice
> little atom works great / some flavor of asterisk) and do yourself a favor
> and pick up some yealink phones.  The name kept me away from the longest
> time but I have tried dozens of phones and right now a T46G is on my desk
> and I won't give it up.  Great price too.  Best phone I have ever used and
> previously I had polycom soundpoint 650.  This one hands down is a better
> solution and its half the price.
> 
>  
> 
> Sh...  don't tell everyone I need them in stock!
> 
>  
> 
> Scott Carullo
> Technical Operations
> 855-FLSPEED x102
> 
>  <http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Chris Fabien" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> 
>  
> 
> It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage
> especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a
> second internet provider for redundancy.  It seems like a bunch of ip phones
> behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be
> problematic.
> 
>   If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn
>   whats available and how others are doing this.
> 
> On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz"  wrote:
> 
>   Why do you want to put  a 'box' on-site ?
> 
>
> 
>   Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones  ?
> 
>
> 
>   Regards.
> 
>
> 
>   Faisal Imtiaz
>   Snappy Internet & Telecom
>   7266 SW 48 Street
>   Miami, FL 33155
>   Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 
> 
>
> 
>   Help-desk: (305)663-5518   Option 2 or Ema

Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

[Faisal Imtiaz]

First of all, thank you for this great discussion, while we are discussing the 
finer points of how we approach things, I would like to state for the record, 
it is not my intent to critique one method over the other, rather a discussion 
on how we solve the common issues related to providing the service to our 
customers.

It is also refreshing to get some overview details on how each of our inhouse 
systems are created / configured / integrated. Speaking for myself, I always 
get some good ideas / feedback from such discussions, and hopeful provide the 
same for yourself and or others.

BTW, thanks for the detailed explanation on B2BUA, I had attempted to do a 
brief explanation for the benefit of others who may be following this thread.

What I find very interesting is how each of our solutions tend to be influenced 
by external factors, business practices, technologies, and our understanding / 
implementation.

Our inhouse Voip platform is built on Virtual Hosting hardware (we are using 
Proxmox) for our hosting cluster.
Some of us are using OmniOS as a Storage Box, others are using local Raid 10 
HDD for storage.

We are using A2billing as LCR call routing, and internal account management, we 
use the post paid capabilities to limit any clients exposure to LD Charges in 
case of a compromise, we are in the process of implementing 3rd iteration of 
the platform, adding scalability, local and geographic redundancy, and 
integration of Freeside billing.

We provision Sip Trunks to IAD for Sip Trunking clients (Sip to pri), and or 
Sip Trunks to a dedicated Hosted PBX (VPS) Freepbx/asterisk instance for Hosted 
PBX Clients.

The IP phones at client site register to the Hosted PBX.. We use proactive 
security on the Hosted PBX Instances. (these days we are favoring OSSEC over 
some of the other usual tools / scripts).

Interesting point to note, while common thinking is that Phone Hacking happens 
at the PBX level, in reality, VM and IP Phone compromise are much more the 
norm in such cases the PBX is not able to determine a compromise.

Having a solid Virtual Hosting Platform, solved a number of other problems for 
us, than just Voice Service Offerings, as such it is easier (less taxing) to 
address security / updates / maintenance / redundancy / scaleability etc etc at 
a central location.

While there is nothing wrong with an on-premises PBX deployment, I know some 
ISP's who prefer doing onsite hardware deployment, but then they also put in a 
larger box, and enable additional services for the client thus getting a better 
ROI... (backup/ router / virtual Hosting etc).

While you and I may choose to follow different strategies, one thing neither 
one of us will disagree on is that having options and choices to do things one 
way or the other is always a good thing.

I hope this discussion, encourages others to test the waters, and not scare 
them away from considering offering services to their clients.
The key is doing it right, with the bigger picture in mind, trying to deal with 
/ put up with limited hardware options from any mfg. whether it is Cisco or 
Grandstream, does not need to be tolerated. :)

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Nathan Anderson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 1:40:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> 
> After re-reading what I wrote, I guess I should clarify the following:
> 
> We have a homegrown SIP-based telephony service that is built on top of
> Asterisk, but which is emphatically not "hosted PBX".  We can provision an
> account as either a single line (one DID, one SIP registration from an ATA,
> 2 channels for call-waiting) or a SIP trunk (multiple DIDs, one SIP
> registration from a PBX, multiple channels), and whether it is a single-line
> or trunk account, the customer has the option of specifying an emergency
> call forward number that calls are sent to if either their ATA or PBX goes
> down for whatever reason, or if our main NOC goes down completely
> (worse-case scenario where all connectivity and power redundancy utterly
> fails).
> 
> So we are using Asterisk, but we are not using it on our side in our NOC as a
> PBX in the traditional sense or understanding.  We are using it more like a
> telephony software platform or SDK.  If a customer needs a PBX and doesn't
> have a preference, we will sell them an Asterisk-based one (an Asterisk
> instance that is configured more traditionally) to live on their premesis,
> and typically also set up VPN access to it so that we can manage and
> troubleshoot it remotely.  That on-site PBX will get calls sent to it from
> our Asterisk-based server.
> 
>

Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Agreed, that SIP/RTP   NAT issues are non-issue when you are using a consistent 
Router such as Mikrotik.

B2BUA (Back to Back user agent, e.g. asterisk to asterisk) has its advantage 
and also it's own set of issues (typically in Codec Conversion ...

STUN or TURN are not necessary either, all depends on the deployment.

We don't depoly sip proxy either, we spin small instances (openvz) for each 
customer, have a scripted install for Freepbx, security etc.. let the phones 
register to the pbx directly.

I strongly disagree about security for the pbx, it is irrelevant if the pbx is 
hosted or on client premises, security has to be proactive and reactive, static 
security is not sufficient, I believe it is less work maintaining a number of  
VPS vs a number of distributed hardware devices located at multiple client 
premises.

As to the question of Hosted vs On-Premise, the right answer has to do with 
what I call external factors...
e.g. in our neck of the woods, travel time is a significant factor, and cost of 
professional labor is high...
being able to manage VPS, provisioning, backup, etc etc (we do all of this 
remotely from our office on machines located at the Data Center), we are able 
to do things much more efficiently than dealing with travel time and running 
around town. (Heck, only today,  I turned up two new extension, one in 
Oklahoma, and another in Tennessee, for a Client based out of Carmel,IN, with 
local DID's, and these two extension are ready to be in service for tomorrow's 
business day !)  

I will agree with you that, having an on-premise pbx is advantageous when there 
is an internet outage (local ext. to ext calls work), this is the reason why 
most of our implementations have dual internet connections (which is easier for 
us to do in our neck of the woods), thus the hosted solution offering being 
more advantageous, (most folks are also carrying Cell Phones, and heavily 
utilize failover to cell in case of an outage).

The flip side is, that if the hosted pbx is in the Data Center with redundant 
internet, it does not go down in case of internet outage the calls get directed 
to VM, or forwarded to Cell. Which is not true in-case of onsite pbx.

I believe that Service Providers, need to learn how to deal with Voice on their 
network, and offer voice services to their customers, when done properly, it is 
most likely to be the MOST PROFITABLE service. If not done properly, it can be 
the biggest headache.

SIP, Voice are mature and accepted Technologies, customers are receptive to it, 
and philosophically speaking I like to keep consistent with the Service 
Provider mentality... vs Hardware Sales mentality When we can offer 
anything as a service for recurring revenue, Why would we want to settle for a 
one time revenue from Hardware Sale and Integration ?

I agree with you, that this is 75%  NSP Business Owner philosophy, and about 
25% actual Tech reasoning. 

I am glad to have this discussion on the list, hopefully this will get folk to 
consider / re-consider their position on offering Voice Services..

:)


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Nathan Anderson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:39:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> 
> Working around NAT issues with SIP and RTP has little-to-nothing to do with
> whether the PBX lives "in the cloud" or is a local piece of hardware.  We do
> not (at this time) do hosted PBX ourselves, and NAT is generally not a
> problem.
> 
> Our strategy isn't even to use something like STUN or TURN.  It is simply to
> employ a B2BUA architecture, where both the SIP and RTP traffic is always
> guaranteed to come from a single IP, the same one that the customer phone or
> PBX initiated communication with when it registered itself to our SIP+RTP
> proxy (and we require SIP registration and don't offer static IP
> authentication as an option).  We also use a low SIP registration expiration
> timer.  That way the necessary port mappings are already in the NAT router's
> connection tracking table, so when an unsolicited SIP message hits their
> router, it gets sent to the right place, and those entries in the table are
> constantly getting refreshed.
> 
> It probably doesn't hurt that in many cases, we also end up selling the
> customer a router that actually has a decent SIP ALG implementation
> (MikroTik/Linux).  But I've found that even with the ALG turned off,
> everything still works fine.
> 
> Security of a local PBX is also relatively straightforward.  DO put the PBX
> behind a NAT, and DON'T create any static port forwards to it on the NAT
&

Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

[Faisal Imtiaz]

We find it easier to manage nat/routing issues via a hosted pbx. 
(Pbx is hosted on a Virtual Server VPS at the DataCenter) 
Using Mikrotik's as client routers (managed router service) is very practical. 
Setting up Dual ISP with Failover is a bit daunting task, however if you 
follow this, recipe to get it done.. 
http://mum.mikrotik.com/presentations/US12/tomas.pdf 

Plus it is my opinion, that it is easier to manage / monitor / secure the PBX 
at the datacenter than one at client site. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Chris Fabien" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:29:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

> It seems like a box on site would make routing/nat issues easier to manage
> especially for customers who may not have our Internet or want to keep a
> second internet provider for redundancy. It seems like a bunch of ip phones
> behind nat connecting up to our switch or a hosted solution would be
> problematic.

> If you have a suggestion on a solid solution i'm all ears, want to learn
> whats available and how others are doing this.
> On May 14, 2014 1:21 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:

> > Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ?
> 

> > Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ?
> 

> > Regards.
> 

> > Faisal Imtiaz
> 
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 
> > 7266 SW 48 Street
> 
> > Miami, FL 33155
> 
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 

> > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 

> > > From: "Chris Fabien" < ch...@lakenetmi.com >
> > 
> 
> > > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM
> > 
> 

> > > Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option
> > > we
> > > can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our
> > > office
> > > phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling
> > > one
> > > to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome
> > > too.
> > 
> 

> > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > 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

Re: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Why do you want to put a 'box' on-site ? 

Why not hosted PBX, and have IP Phones ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Chris Fabien" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:40:10 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Small IP PBX - Grandstream UCM

> Anyone tried out this Grandstream IP PBX? Looking for a low cost option we
> can use for small businesses with 4-8 phones. Also need to redo our office
> phones so I have a nice chance to try out a new product before selling one
> to a customer. Any suggestions other than the grandstream are welcome too.

> ___
> 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] VOIP Security Consultant

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Chris, 

Not withstanding security on Freepbx, you know there is no way for freepbx to 
do anything if one of the endpoints are compromised, or a valid user /ext 
password is jacked. 

We use an external system (a2billing) as a means of managing and controlling 
such compromises... 

If this is of interest, feel free to give me shout off-line, unless there are 
others who would like to hear more about this on the list. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Chris Fabien" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:28:28 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] VOIP Security Consultant

> I need help troubleshooting some fraudulent activity on our FreePBX system
> and implementing safeguards to prevent it happening again. Anyone who is
> knowledgeable with this please contact me offlist.

> ___
> 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] Rocket AP through put

[Faisal Imtiaz]

about 20k pps. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Mike Lyon" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:03:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rocket AP through put

> Whats the magic PPS number for the Rockets? I forget...
> On Apr 16, 2014 8:52 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote:

> > My guess is that you are running out of PPS capacity (packets per second).
> 

> > Video tends to be smaller packets in size but larger number in quantity...
> 

> > So, here come a lot of if's and's or buts.
> 
> > How do the other folks (Wisp's) Manage this issue. ?
> 

> > Lots of different ways, but before you dive into that.. you will have to
> > describe your network a bit
> 

> > Bridged ? Routed ?
> 
> > What is doing Traffic Shaping ?
> 

> > How many AP's/ Pop ? what is the Backhaul ? etc.
> 

> > I wish there was a simple answer for the problem you are describing..
> 

> > :)
> 

> > Regards.
> 

> > Faisal Imtiaz
> 
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 
> > 7266 SW 48 Street
> 
> > Miami, FL 33155
> 
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 

> > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 

> > > From: "Art Stephens" < asteph...@ptera.com >
> > 
> 
> > > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:50:07 PM
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: [WISPA] Rocket AP through put
> > 
> 

> > > Looking for some feed back concerning Rocket APs. We have quite a few of
> > > these in the field with UBNT Sectors and KPerformance Sectors.
> > 
> 

> > > What we run into is customer complaints about slow speeds at night when
> > > they
> > > call into after hours support. We come in the next day and run speed
> > > tests
> > > to the radios and they look ok.
> > 
> 

> > > Some APs have 20 subs and some as high as 50 subs.
> > 
> 

> > > Yesterday one of our employees ran speed tests from his home connected to
> > > one
> > > of those APs during the day and he got 15M. Then that evening he tried to
> > > watch Netflix - biggest complaint from most subs - and it would not
> > > start.
> > > He ran a speed test and got 500K. The AP he is connected to has 19 subs.
> > 
> 

> > > Trying to figure out just how many subs streaming on an AP will bring the
> > > through put down to 500K?
> > 
> 

> > > We are considering limiting how many streams can run on a given AP but
> > > need
> > > to figure where the breaking point is if that makes any sense.
> > 
> 

> > > Thanks for any insight any one can shed on this.
> > 
> 

> > > --
> > 
> 
> > > 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
> > 
> 
> > > -
> > 
> 
> > > "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and
> > > is
> > > intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
> > 
> 
> > > Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or
> > > opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are
> > > not
> > > intended to represent those of the company."
> > 
> 

> > > ___
> > 
> 
> > > 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

Re: [WISPA] Rocket AP through put

[Faisal Imtiaz]

My guess is that you are running out of PPS capacity (packets per second). 

Video tends to be smaller packets in size but larger number in quantity... 

So, here come a lot of if's and's or buts. 
How do the other folks (Wisp's) Manage this issue. ? 

Lots of different ways, but before you dive into that.. you will have to 
describe your network a bit 

Bridged ? Routed ? 
What is doing Traffic Shaping ? 

How many AP's/ Pop ? what is the Backhaul ? etc. 

I wish there was a simple answer for the problem you are describing.. 

:) 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Art Stephens" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 5:50:07 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Rocket AP through put

> Looking for some feed back concerning Rocket APs. We have quite a few of
> these in the field with UBNT Sectors and KPerformance Sectors.

> What we run into is customer complaints about slow speeds at night when they
> call into after hours support. We come in the next day and run speed tests
> to the radios and they look ok.

> Some APs have 20 subs and some as high as 50 subs.

> Yesterday one of our employees ran speed tests from his home connected to one
> of those APs during the day and he got 15M. Then that evening he tried to
> watch Netflix - biggest complaint from most subs - and it would not start.
> He ran a speed test and got 500K. The AP he is connected to has 19 subs.

> Trying to figure out just how many subs streaming on an AP will bring the
> through put down to 500K?

> We are considering limiting how many streams can run on a given AP but need
> to figure where the breaking point is if that makes any sense.

> Thanks for any insight any one can shed on this.

> --
> 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
> -
> "This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is
> intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
> Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or
> opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not
> intended to represent those of the company."

> ___
> 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] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Let's say this differently. 

The USF (TAX) Obligation is on the Service Provider (Telco etc), and it is a 
Tax on the Telco, not the Telco's customers. 
The Telco, can choose to recover this from it's customers or NOT AT ALL. 
However, the rules that have to be followed, in regards to recovery are .. 
Apply evenly across the customer base 
Cannot Recover more than Telco's USF Obligation .. 
Exemption from this are narrowly defined (Gov entities, and some Non Profit, i 
am going by memory) 
AND any Entity that is under obligation to contribute to USF directly (not 
deminimus) 

previously most telco's were a bit loose in letting re-sellers have their 
exemptions, but over the last few year they have become more stringent... they 
now check your 499 to make sure you are not deminimus. 

--- 
BTW, the big rub comes in, when one's status changes from de-minimus to not 
being de-minimus.. since FCC calculates one's USF contribution obligation 
in arrears, one has the pleasure of paying all the recovery fees to it's 
vendors, and the whole amount to FCC as well... 

If you go to them and say, hey you are taxing me twice/ you are making me pay 
this twice Their answer, we are not... we are only asking you to pay the 
obligation to us (the tax) once, now... what you have paid to your vendors is a 
'fee', and we have nothing to do with that. you go duke that one out with 
your vendors 

Vendor's response. It's the Federal Law, everyone pays... if you fill out 
your exemption docs, we will not collect the recovery fee from you moving 
forward.. but the past is the past... 

And, if you go in the other direction from being not de-minimus to being 
de-minimusyou get screwed again.. because FCC calculates one's future USF 
obligations based on previous years contribution... so you have to pay.and 
when you file your numbers... you get to have a nice conversation with FCC 
They say, we don't understand how did your actual numbers drop. after you 
get past it... they say... OK... moving forward i.e. next year the numbers will 
change... if you ask, hey what about this year ?.. .Answer is .. 
Sorry, we don't issue refunds, and we have no way to make 'corrections' to our 
billing system (which no one there understands)... 

So you are SOL again... 

I think we should replace the the word CF (ClusterF***) with the acronym USF ! 
-- 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:21:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

> Regarding USF
> " wholesaler must have evidence that the reseller customer both “(1)
> [incorporates] the purchased telecommunications services into its own
> offerings, and (2) can reasonably be expected to contribute to support
> universal service based on revenues from those offerings."
> In the past it was possible to be exempt from your upstream from charging
> you, by only declaring that you were a reseller, and all that you had to do
> to get exempted was to show that you utilized the telecommunications
> services in your own retail offerings. The advantage to USF, would have been
> the ISP would likely sell the retail service for more money than the
> wholesale price and therefore collect higher USF funds. However, the loop
> whole for the ISP was that once they were exempt with their upstream, there
> was not much control to verify how much USF the downstream ISP would collect
> or be required to collect. For example, if the reseller ISP only sold
> information services "Internet Access", the ISP would never collect or pay
> USF. So, the above quoted clause did away with that loophole, by adding
> section (2), now making it a requirement that the wholesaler reasonably
> expect the reseller to pay into the USF based on revenues from those
> offerings. Meaning Wholesalers could make downstream ISPs prove they are
> paying into USF before allowing exemption.
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

> > - Original Message -
> 
> > From: Faisal Imtiaz
> 
> > To: WISPA General List
> 
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:46 PM
> 
> > Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
> 

> > They all do. (i.e. try to screw the ISP/NSP/WISP)
> 

> > Chase down the person in-charge of their Tax Dept, and ask them for ITNA
> > Tax
> > Exemption Form
> 

> > :)
> 

> > 

Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

[Faisal Imtiaz]

They all do. (i.e. try to screw the ISP/NSP/WISP) 

Chase down the person in-charge of their Tax Dept, and ask them for ITNA Tax 
Exemption Form 

:) 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Matt Hoppes" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:44:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

> Oh really? Comcast wants to charge me 16% USF on a point to point to carry
> Internet traffic.

> Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 15, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net >
> wrote:

> > hmmm.. not quite accurate...
> 

> > Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to
> > internet
> > access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access.
> 

> > Regards.
> 

> > Faisal Imtiaz
> 
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 
> > 7266 SW 48 Street
> 
> > Miami, FL 33155
> 
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 

> > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 

> > - Original Message -
> 

> > > From: "Matt Hoppes" < mhop...@indigowireless.com >
> > 
> 
> > > To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
> > 
> 

> > > I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport
> > > and
> > > not an internet circuit.
> > 
> 

> > > As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet
> > > access.
> > 
> 

> > > Sent from my iPad
> > 
> 

> > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, "Tom DeReggi" < wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net >
> > > wrote:
> > 
> 

> > > > Guys,
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status
> > > > of
> > > > CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my
> > > > first
> > > > bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro
> > > > ethernet IP)
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber.
> > > > I
> > > > am
> > > > just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component,
> > > > not
> > > > an
> > > > End User Internet circuit.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing
> > > > Broadband
> > > > only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State
> > > > Taxes.
> > > > And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or
> > > > collect
> > > > such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to
> > > > support
> > > > my claim to my upstream.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber
> > > > cost.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by
> > > > the
> > > > State.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was
> > > > applicable it was always only around 6%.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber.
> > > > I
> > > > am
> > > > just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > So I consider this a who

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Even though you are addressing this to Fred, 

I would like to point out where your confusion is coming from :-

First of all, you need to keep in mind that USF is a tax from the Federal Gov, 
imposed on the Telecom Service Provider, however the Service provider is 
allowed to recover this from it's customers.

So.The Feds are not imposing USF Taxes on the WISP..
Your Fiber Transport Provider is Collecting (Recovery fee) USF (you 
should note that not using the work Tax) from you because you are an end user, 
and the law allows them to do so.

As for Communication Taxes / Sales Taxes, these are imposed by the State not 
the Feds, and Internet Tax Freedom Act, allows you as an ISP to claim exemption 
from these taxes. (And yes these are taxes )

As for property taxes, these are imposed on the owner of the property, and in 
your case the Owner is asking you to pay a 'Recovery fee' to offset the 
Property Taxes imposed on them.

--
One has to understand what is Tax and on Whom, and what is Recovery Fee, and 
who is Recovering it...

Yes, it sucks, and yes there are situations in which you will get totally 
screwed..
---

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:39:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re:  New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Ok, so in summary
> 
> A WISP Internet Provider is an "Information Service" and does not collect or
> charge USF. And that end-to-end Internet Information Service solution is
> composed of 3 In-line components, working togeather as one.
> 
> 1. Wireless last mile (provider me)
> 2. Fiber-based Metro IP transport (provider A)
> 3. IP transit  (provider B)
> 
> And the sole purpose and use of the Metro-IP Transport link is to deliver
> "information Services" to the End User, as a part of the solution..
> 
> So, you are saying. Under that Circumstance, the Metro IP tranport layer
> can not be claimed as a "wholesale Component" of an "Information Service",
> and WISPs must consider themselves an End User of telecommunications
> Services, and be subject to USF and Taxation on that circuit, because
> Metro-IP Data services are considered Telecommunications services,
> regardless of how they might be used.
> 
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fred Goldstein" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:55 PM
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
> 
> 
> > 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 p

Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

[Faisal Imtiaz]

hmmm.. not quite accurate... 

Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to internet 
access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Matt Hoppes" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

> I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport and
> not an internet circuit.

> As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet access.

> Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, "Tom DeReggi" < wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net >
> wrote:

> > Guys,
> 
> > I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of
> > CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my
> > first
> > bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
> 
> > (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro
> > ethernet IP)
> 
> > Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am
> > just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
> 
> > So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not
> > an
> > End User Internet circuit.
> 
> > In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.
> 
> > I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing
> > Broadband
> > only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State
> > Taxes.
> > And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect
> > such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support
> > my claim to my upstream.
> 
> > THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
> 
> > The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
> 
> > The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
> 
> > The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost.
> 
> > First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the
> > State.
> 
> > Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was
> > applicable it was always only around 6%.
> 
> > Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am
> > just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
> 
> > So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not
> > an
> > End User Internet circuit.
> 
> > So questions are
> 
> > 1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
> 
> > 2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to
> > document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
> 
> > 3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so,
> > what
> > is the current % rate?
> 
> > 4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I
> > classify
> > myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a
> > CLEC).
> 
> > 5) Does it matter how I use the circuit?
> 
> > 6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly?
> 
> > Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code.
> 
> > Tom DeReggi
> 
> > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> 
> > 301-515-7774
> 
> > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 

> > ___
> 
> > 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] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

[Faisal Imtiaz]

condensed answer .. 

1. You can claim exemption from communication taxes if you ask for ITNA 
(Internet Taxation Freedom Act) Exemption.. (Most providers now have forms for 
it, even though it is not easy to get them to provide the forms)., as long as 
you are not in a grandfathered state. 

2. No way out of paying USF, unless you have a 499 ID and you are NOT 
de-minimus There is an exemption form for this as well... 

3. Recovery Fees you are SOL, because there is no law that applies  
unless you have negotiated something that counters this in your MSA. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:19:54 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

> Guys,
> I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of
> CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first
> bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
> (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro
> ethernet IP)
> Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am
> just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
> So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an
> End User Internet circuit.
> In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.
> I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband
> only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes.
> And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect
> such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support
> my claim to my upstream.
> THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
> The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
> The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
> The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost.
> First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the
> State.
> Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was
> applicable it was always only around 6%.
> Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am
> just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
> So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an
> End User Internet circuit.
> So questions are
> 1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
> 2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to
> document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
> 3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what
> is the current % rate?
> 4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I classify
> myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a
> CLEC).
> 5) Does it matter how I use the circuit?
> 6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly?
> Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code.
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> 301-515-7774
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

> ___
> 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] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Interesting thought... 

Question, What would be the advantage of using a configuration as such ?


Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Pedro Ramirez" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Cc: "radek filip tyc" , "Adrian Metelica" 
> 
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:56:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached
> 
> We can make a Sector antenna for 4 Rockets similar to the one in your
> pictures.
> 
> It can be with 4 external N-Female connectors or with a metal shielded
> enclosure with internal SMA connectors to put the rockets inside.
> 
> What frequencies are needed?
> 
> And who would like to test this new design for us?
> 
> Pedro Ramirez
> Itelite Antennas, Inc
> 
> On 16-Mar-14 7:37 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> > Could it be something like this?
> >
> > http://www.itelite.net/en/Katalog/5-GHz-80211a-Triband//PRO-SECTOR-XL-245dual-band2xdual-HV.html
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On Mar 16, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Gino Villarini  wrote:
> >>
> >> I think one of the many local wisps popping here are getting very
> >> "creative"
> >>
> >> Anyone can ID this sector? Im thinking its a Mobile Carrier antenna that
> >> they are reusing… but what band?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gino A. Villarini
> >> President
> >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> >> www.aeronetpr.com
> >> @aeronetpr
> >>
> >>
> >> <1966672_712600742137746_1812154666_n.jpg>
> >> <1964801_712600822137738_1228898799_n.jpg>
> >> ___
> >> 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

Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached

[Faisal Imtiaz]

It looks like there is a sticker / label at the bottom of the antenna...and it 
appears that there is some sort of a logo engraved on the plastic covers on top 
of the lower Rocket's 

A clearer picture of the two might give you better clues as to brand and 
product. 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:36:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached

> Its doable with a sync based platform… but UBNT? This has RF issues written
> all over it!

> Gino A. Villarini
> President
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> www.aeronetpr.com
> @aeronetpr

> From: Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net >
> Reply-To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Date: Sunday, March 16, 2014 9:33 AM
> To: WISPA General List < wireless@wispa.org >
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached

> Useful to get by per-antenna pricing. I am looking to do the same.

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

> - Original Message -

> From: "Chris Fabien" < ch...@lakenetmi.com >
> To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org >
> Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:31:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 8x8 antenna for ubnt?? pic attached

> The RPSMA Connectors spaced just right for rockets seems unlikely for a
> Carrier panel antenna. I would guess that is a custom job , Maybe they put
> the guts from several ubnt Sectors into a recycled case.
> On Mar 16, 2014 9:20 AM, "Gino Villarini" < g...@aeronetpr.com > wrote:

> > I think one of the many local wisps popping here are getting very
> > "creative"
> 

> > Anyone can ID this sector? Im thinking its a Mobile Carrier antenna that
> > they
> > are reusing… but what band?
> 

> > Gino A. Villarini
> 
> > President
> 
> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 
> > www.aeronetpr.com
> 
> > @aeronetpr
> 

> > ___
> 
> > 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

Re: [WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I am tempted to say, most likely a grounding or a ground loop related issue.

Most Enterprise class switches don't have any kind of surge protection built-in 
on the switch.
Some of the POE switches do however folks like Mikrotik or even most of the 
industrial switches have such protection built in.

Have you tried connecting in indoor Ethernet surge protector right before the 
switch port ?

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Fred Goldstein" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 5:36:02 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports
> 
> We've been seeing a strange problem on a network we operate that has a
> lot of (mostly old) Motorola PTP400 radios on it.  These use the
> Motorola PIDU POE injector.  They're connected to HP Procurve and Cisco
> 3550 switches.
> 
> The problem is that some radios literally kill the switch ports.
> Sometimes it begins with alignment and CRC errors on the switch ports.
> But then the port might fail, and the radio has to be plugged into
> another port... until it fails.  It's an odd failure mode too; the 3550
> thinks the port is OK, and sees it as going up and down as the PIDU is
> attached and detached, but it doesn't pass packets.
> 
> The "fix" is to insert a small dumb switch to isolate the 3550 from the
> PTP, but that's kind of a nasty hack.  Ciscos seem somewhat more
> susceptible than HPs, but we're migrating towards the venerable Ciscos
> because they are more manageable. We think we have the speed and duplex
> matching right.  And while we can't be sure, the cabling in most cases
> looks okay.
> 
> Anybody else run into this?  Thanks.
> 
> --
>   Fred R. Goldstein  k1io fred "at" interisle.net
>   Interisle Consulting Group
>   +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] Outlet toner for cat5/6 and/or Coax

[Faisal Imtiaz]

What is the problem with the Klein tester ?
If it does what you need, for $80 that is great.

Why are you looking for options ? is there something the Klein tester not do ? 

Regards

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:09:22 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Outlet toner for cat5/6 and/or Coax
> 
> I'm looking for something similar to this (just other options):
> http://www.homedepot.com/p/Klein-Tools-VDV-Scout-Pro-Tester-Kit-VDV501-809/202520422?quantity=1
> 
> If it works with coax (RG-6) too, that's fine but not required.
> 
> I used to use something similar back in my satellite tv days, and
> thought it would be really nice to have for some of our indoor wiring jobs.
> 
> Warning: If it says Fluke on it, I probably won't buy it. I respect
> their quality, but we don't want to spend 250+ per device for these.
> 
> --
> Josh Reynolds :: Chief Information Officer :: SPITwSPOTS
> :: Ubiquiti Certified AirMax Trainer ::
> 
> ___
> 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] Cable Testers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

If you are not looking to certify cable or for anything fancy, to check 
continuity, wire map, and cable length . 

Search of SC8108 on ebay These are in-expensive and get the job done. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Mark Spring" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:11:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cable Testers

> basic wire testing, anything more advanced would be a bonus so we are just
> weighing cost options to see if it would be worth the upgrade to get
> additional features. Maybe Ubiquiti should develop a meter that replaces the
> microscanner2(it looks looks nice) for 1/4 the price...i'd wait two years
> for that!

> Mark Spring
> Systems Analyst

> New Knoxville Telephone Company
> 301 W. South St.
> New Knoxville, OH 45871
> 419.753.5000

> This message and the file(s) attached are confidential and proprietary
> information of NKTelco for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> unauthorized review, distribution, disclosure, copying, use, or
> dissemination, either whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Do not
> transmit these documents, in any form, to any third party without the
> expressed written permission of NKTelco.

> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Jay Weekley < par...@cyberbroadband.net >
> wrote:

> > What details are you looking for? I should get a new tester myself.
> 

> > Mark Spring wrote:
> 
> > > can anybody make any recommendations for cat5/cable testers they have
> 
> > > had good luck with? We had good luck with the testum(jdsu) testers but
> 
> > > apparently they were discontinued. We are looking at the micromapper
> 
> > > from fluke but something with a little more detail might help. Fluke
> 
> > > makes bigger brothers to the micromapper but they are a little more
> 
> > > than economical.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Thanks,
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Mark Spring
> 
> > > Systems Analyst
> 
> > >
> 
> > > New Knoxville Telephone Company
> 
> > > 301 W. South St.
> 
> > > New Knoxville, OH 45871
> 
> > > 419.753.5000
> 
> > >
> 
> > > This message and the file(s) attached are confidential and proprietary
> 
> > > information of NKTelco for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> 
> > > unauthorized review, distribution, disclosure, copying, use, or
> 
> > > dissemination, either whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Do not
> 
> > > transmit these documents, in any form, to any third party without the
> 
> > > expressed written permission of NKTelco.
> 
> > >
> 
> > >
> 
> > > ___
> 
> > > 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

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Personal Opinion 

I believe the CCR is a greatly suited as a Tower Router or (Customer network 
facing Router, bridge, traffic shaping, filter rules etc) 

However I believe at the present x86 (i3/i5/i7) based MT are more suited for 
Internet Facing Edge routers (doing Multiple Full BGP Tables etc, very little 
to no filter rules...) 

Depending on Traffic load and (smaller) network design , it is quiet possible 
to use either one as a 'all in one' but in the long run it would be better to 
break out into two separate boxes. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 8:20:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

> Sam,
> Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter
> rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor.
> That is good to learn.
> Eric,
> Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is
> single core, if it can use a unique core.
> My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core.
> Faisal,
> A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full
> throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for
> full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86
> processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs
> arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to
> handle the load of other processes.
> Paul,
> Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs,
> sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP
> Router. It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we
> temporarilly put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR.
> Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be
> seen.
> In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as
> Sam's example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to
> spread out the load.
> Last Question:
> Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed
> per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because
> when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a
> router port can push the full GB versus say 50%.
> It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber
> infrastructure prematurely.
> Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve
> theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port?
> 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size?
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

> > - Original Message -
> 
> > From: Sam Tetherow
> 
> > To: WISPA General List
> 
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM
> 
> > Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
> 

> > Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent
> > bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge
> > filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50
> > and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print
> 

> > The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing
> > could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree
> > entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth
> > limiter and they wanted to keep that setup.
> 

> > Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have
> > been
> > pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat.
> 

> > On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> 

> > > Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a
> > > redundant topic or not.
> > 
> 
> > > Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform,
> > > using
> > > as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections
> > > (w/
> > > BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)?
> > 
> 
> > > To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say
> > > a
> > > third party Quad core 3Ghz model.
> > 
> 
> > > What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even
> > > used
&g

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yep, you said it Rubens. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Rubens Kuhl" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 4:20:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

> > Faisal,
> 
> > A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and
> > Full
> > throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for
> > full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With
> > X86
> > processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs
> > arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to
> > handle the load of other processes.
> 

> It seems there is a dual-core processor per port, so if that ports gets hit
> by a DDoS, it will go down without help of any of other ports cores...

> Rubens

> ___
> 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] Mikrotik on Multi-core

[Faisal Imtiaz]

FYI.. the current ROS (6.x) does have limitations on most processes being 
single threaded. 

Supposed to get fixed i.e. become multi threaded in the near future. 

Additionally each port has 1 core dedicated to it.. Which under certain 
circumstances is a good thing, and not so good under other circumstances. 

CCR are a great product, a bit in their early cycle... but none the less, a 
great addition to the MT product line. 

X86 based MT are not obsolete or dead because of the CCR's. and are stable, 
viable and in some cases better performing... 

So take your pick ! 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 4:53:22 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core

> Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a
> redundant topic or not.
> Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using
> as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/
> BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)?
> To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a
> third party Quad core 3Ghz model.
> What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by
> software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing
> - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port?
> - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to
> a unique processor or use multiple processors?
> Is 1.2Ghz enough?
> Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we
> learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as
> only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE
> w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.)
> Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to
> routing that were written to be only single processor support.
> Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor
> possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1
> primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router.
> In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with
> added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the
> processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical
> published port throughput.
> For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors?
> Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for
> high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers?
> In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on
> location of parameter.
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> 301-515-7774
> IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband

> ___
> 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] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Anyone with first-hand experience in this type of setup ? 

http://www.ligowave.com/ligoptp-5-23-unity 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Ian Framson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2014 8:10:07 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios

> Hi Wisps,

> We are looking for a pair of radios that can do 200 Mbps FDX over 11 miles
> (real world, not manufacturer's theoretical marketing promises). We are
> looking at using an unlicensed link (most likely 5 GHz) due to the time
> constraints, although we're open to suggestions.

> The make/model we were considering was Motorola PTP650 with 450 Mbps upgrade
> license. We are not wed to Motorola, however. The cost seems to be the
> limiting factor at this point.

> Another WISP I spoke with mentioned Bridgewave TD60 might be 1 possibility.

> Your thoughts?

> Ian Framson
> Co-founder

> www.tradeshowinternet.com
> i...@tradeshowinternet.com
> (866) 385-1504 x701
> (818) 590-7475 mobile
> (415) 704-3153 fax

> Connect With Us

> ___
> 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] AF and rain storm

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Since we are talking about AF Do yourself a favor... upgrade your AF to 2.0(beta1) firmware    It has a few features, which will make the link last longer (before dropping out totally) when it rains.        This firmware also has "added GIGE carrier follows RF link functionality" ... i.e. it wil bring down the ethernet port when the RF Link goes out... thus facilitating OSPF fail-over    If you are using Mikrotik or Cisco's, you should also look into BFD (Bidirectional Forwarding Detection) to have a faster failover.   (unless you are using your AF & Backup links as 'bonded' links)Regards.    Faisal ImtiazSnappy Internet & Telecom7266 SW 48 StreetMiami, FL 33155Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net From: "Darin Steffl" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 9:54:35 AMSubject: Re: [WISPA] AF and rain stormWhat OSPF settings do you use to facilitate such a quick fail over to tik backups? Also, this wouldn't switch over until the link completely died so do you do anything special to have OSPF handle this or do you have to wait for it to die? I can just see the link getting bad enough that it will send the smallest amount of data but not drop thus limiting the capacity to even less than a backup link in place.I remember chuck talking about something in the forums about dropping ethernet past a certain signal threshold or when RF link drops.On Dec 21, 2013 12:04 AM, "Jim Patient"  wrote:Just thought I would share some real world stuff.  Don’t get me wrong this is in no way dissing this AF link.  It has worked geat and I fully expect it to drop off in a hard down poor like this. That’s why we have 2 5GHz MT links to fall back on.  I just thought it was cool to see everything working like it should.   This happened tonight.  You can see our TP weather station rainfall graph. The weather station is just down the hill from pinoak tower (no longer a real pinoak).  The AF link drops off, the MT 5GHz link ramping up as the AF link drops and throughput on the drain pipe stays stable while all this was happening and no lost packets. There is also link path so you can see distance and actual signal of the link right now with just basically mist. You can almost graph the rainfall rate by the throughput on the MT backup link J Thx,  Jim PatientOffice: 314-735-0270towercoverage.com linktechs.netwlan1.com  ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___Wireless mailing listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] CCR switches?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Take a look at the Routerboard.com web site for the specs...

http://routerboard.com/CRS125-24G-1S-IN

I believe you will find the answer to your questions...

Look at the pdf's for each of the devices...

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Paolo Di Francesco" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:48:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] CCR switches?
> 
> I am talking about this (for example)
> 
> CRS125-24G-1S-IN
> 
> sorry for the confusion
> 
> > Hi All
> >
> > I see that the CCR switches have been announced and they are running
> > routeros
> >
> > Now I am wondering the differences between the switches and a RB2011, i.e.:
> >
> > 1) the CCR switch sees all ports are a unique thing and it cannot route
> > 2) it's just a marketing strategy, the CCR switches are just the usual
> > routers but with faster speeds
> > 3) there are some limitations on the CCR switches
> > etc...
> >
> > I am just confused. There are towers where an equivalent of a RB2011
> > with more ports would be nice but I am still wondering if the CCR swich
> > is the right product
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
> 
> Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
> 
> Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
> 
> C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
> Fax : +39-091-8772072
> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
> web: http://www.level7.it
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] MDU wiring

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Depending on how many units are on each floor... 
You might be able to save some $ if you install POE powered Switches on each of 
the floors, thus concentrating / reducing the number of UPS's required. 

You could do a Passive POE powered from a couple of of the Telco Closets (using 
Mikrotik for example) 
Or you can do 802.3af active powered  (SLM2008 ...) 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:20:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MDU wiring

> Then I have to add a switch and ups on each floor… I was thinking of home
> running all to the top floor… no?

> Gino A. Villarini

> g...@aeronetpr.com

> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

> 787.273.4143

> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Sam Tetherow
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:13 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MDU wiring

> Switch on each floor, cat5e to each unit. If you have the ability, wire each
> floor back to the telco room on the roof, otherwise you could 'daisy-chain'
> each floor to the one above it back to the roof. Second option has a lot
> more points of failure though.

> On 10/29/2013 09:05 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:

> > Given the following scenario:
> 

> > New MDU , 15 floors, telco room on top, telco closet on each floor with
> > conduit to each Unit… what would be the cheapest way to wire this for Cat5
> > Ethernet?
> 

> > Gino A. Villarini
> 

> > g...@aeronetpr.com
> 

> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 

> > 787.273.4143
> 

> > ___
> 
> > 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] Need mast mounting bracket for I-Beam

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Do a google search for Beam Clamps.
You can get creative with them along with Struts.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
> From: "Joshua Zukerman" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 5:12:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need mast mounting bracket for I-Beam
> 
> Forgot to include a photo (120KB attached).
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Joshua Zukerman
> wrote:
> 
> > Hello list,
> >
> > I have a client that I am setting up a PtP wireless link between two
> > buildings. The antenna will be going on the roof of a service station, that
> > has steel I-beams going across it. I want to mount a 5' mast (RadioShack
> > mast) to the I-Beam if possible. What brackets are made for this
> > application?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --
> > Joshua Zukerman
> > President
> > Snow Pond Technology Group Inc.
> > www.snowpondtech.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Joshua Zukerman
> President
> Snow Pond Technology Group Inc.
> www.snowpondtech.com
> 
> ___
> 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] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Faisal Imtiaz]

We have some Hosted Pbx Customers with very low usage, which work out to be in 
the high margin range. 
Professional Offices (Lawyers, Engineers, etc). 

But even then, when you have an properly designed in house system, and one is 
buying origination / termination properly, even the heavy users should yield a 
decent 40%-60% margin. (multi-line customers, hosted pbx customers etc..) 

Profit margins become rather thin when you start going through middle folks and 
or if you are having to buy the origination / termination from the ILEC via 
their retail side. 

Just for kicks, I am going to give CTI a plug, ( I am not endorsing their 
service, just using it as an example), but they offer $9/line service Suited 
for Resi and Small Business selling that for $25 to $35 before taxes would 
also yield a nice margin. 

Regards 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 7:39:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity 



I meant those getting 80% profit. 

Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Jul 28, 2013 7:17 PM, "Jeremy" < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 



(plus taxes and fees) 


On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 



Josh - $21.95 residential and $29.95 business. 


On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Fred Goldstein < fgoldst...@ionary.com > 
wrote: 



On 7/28/2013 2:20 PM, Jeremy wrote: 



So while I am de minimus should I not be charging a USF fee? You stated that I 
cannot charge more than I pass along but if I pass along nothing until I am at 
the 10K mark then am I not supposed to bill it until that point? 




Carlos has good advice -- consult a lawyer. (I'm not a lawyer but I play an 
engineer on TV.) I just checked with one who could not render actual "advice". 
Rather, he explained, "This is one of the mysteries of USF." 

The FCC forgot about this case when they did the rules. So the usual practice 
seems to be to collect the fees. You might after all be passing them along to 
your wholesale provider, who is charging USF to you. But if you do go over the 
$10k limit, then you could owe retroactively, and in that case you want the 
money in the bank! So unless they've clarified this in the instructions on the 
Form 499s (be warned; they do that sometimes, and you don't know the rule until 
you read the new fine print), you can pass along the fee you would be 
collecting under safe harbor, and apply it to the USF charges you're being hit 
with. 

I don't think these crazy fees are a reason to avoid voice services, but they 
are a pain to administer. The FCC is terrible about writing clear rules. 






On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Fred Goldstein < fgoldst...@ionary.com > 
wrote: 



On 7/28/2013 12:46 AM, Jeremy wrote: 



>From what I read it seems like you can collect whatever you want directly from 
>your customers but it may be considered as income and taxed as such. So you 
>can't really pass it on as a direct fee and bypass your income tax liability 
>for it. 




No. Federal billing rules say that you cannot collect more on your retail bill 
for FUSF than you pass along. No markups allowed. Most of the other charges can 
also be passed along one for one, but state rules could vary. 

But the rate is not exactly what you think. The Federal USF rate is calculated 
as a percentage, changed quarterly (it has gone over 17%), of your interstate 
telecommunications service billing. If you are providing local telephone 
service, that line item is not subject to USF as it is intrastate, not 
intersate. Internet access is not subject to USF as it is information service, 
not telecommunications service. The tax was meant to apply to long distance 
calls, which were a lot of money back in the day. 

If you are (as is the norm nowadays) providing a service that does not charge 
explicitly for interstate long distance, then you have two options. There is a 
"safe harbor" of 64.9%, wherein that percentage of the total phone package is 
deemed interstate. So if you sold it for $10/month, the tax would be applied to 
$6.49 of it. This number was computed back when VoIP services were primarily 
used as cheap dial-around long distance, not as primary lines, so the "PIU" 
(percentage interstate use -- this number comes up a LOT in telecom billing) 
was high. 

You can also compute what percentage of your calls are actually interstate, and 
pay USF on that percentage of the bill. This involves filling out the Form 
499-Q's correctly, but it is the norm nowadays. 

Bear in mind that there is a "

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Faisal Imtiaz]

99% of customers are business, we are providing hosted pbx, Sip Trunk w/ATA or 
SIP Trunk w/PRI hand off. 
On the average they are running between $25 to $40 per line (per say). 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:59:13 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity 



How much are you charging for it? 

Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Jul 28, 2013 6:45 PM, "Faisal Imtiaz" < fai...@snappytelecom.net > wrote: 



hehe you can dip your toes in the water... it is warm. 

When done right, voip can easily have 50% to 80% margin. 

paying these fees and taxes are just tiny nuisance. 


:) 


Faisal Imtiaz 



From: "Matt Hoppes" < mhop...@indigowireless.com > 
To: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Cc: "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:51:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity 

This is one reason I won't touch VoIP. 

On Jul 28, 2013, at 0:20, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 




I am attempting to figure out all of the taxes for VoiP and the main thing that 
has me confused is the Universal Service Fund. It seems that my state (Utah) 
has a USF of 0.45% 
http://www.psc.state.ut.us/utilities/telecom/documents/Rule%20746-360%20amendment.rtf
 

Then it also seems like the Feds want 15.1%?? That is huge! 
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contribution-factor-quarterly-filings-universal-service-fund-usf-management-support
 

Then there is sales and use tax of 
State Sales & Use - 4.7% 
Municipality Sales & Use - varies - see 
http://tax.utah.gov/salestax/rate/13q3combined.pdf 

Then we have E911: 

E911 State - .08 
E911 County - .61 
Poison Control - .07 
--- 
Total for E911 - .76 

Then, since October 2011 we are also liable for the Telecommunications Relay 
Fund - .06 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-150A1.pdf 






___ 
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

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Faisal Imtiaz]

hehe you can dip your toes in the water... it is warm. 

When done right, voip can easily have 50% to 80% margin. 

paying these fees and taxes are just tiny nuisance. 


:) 


Faisal Imtiaz 


- Original Message -

From: "Matt Hoppes"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Cc: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 3:51:55 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity 

This is one reason I won't touch VoIP. 

On Jul 28, 2013, at 0:20, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 




I am attempting to figure out all of the taxes for VoiP and the main thing that 
has me confused is the Universal Service Fund. It seems that my state (Utah) 
has a USF of 0.45% 
http://www.psc.state.ut.us/utilities/telecom/documents/Rule%20746-360%20amendment.rtf
 

Then it also seems like the Feds want 15.1%?? That is huge! 
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contribution-factor-quarterly-filings-universal-service-fund-usf-management-support
 

Then there is sales and use tax of 
State Sales & Use - 4.7% 
Municipality Sales & Use - varies - see 
http://tax.utah.gov/salestax/rate/13q3combined.pdf 

Then we have E911: 

E911 State - .08 
E911 County - .61 
Poison Control - .07 
--- 
Total for E911 - .76 

Then, since October 2011 we are also liable for the Telecommunications Relay 
Fund - .06 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-150A1.pdf 






___ 
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] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Fred, 

on a related note... Neustar sending bills to anyone/everyone filling out FCC 
form 499, for LNP system, is that legit ? 

Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
- Original Message -

From: "Fred Goldstein"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:42:04 AM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity 

On 7/28/2013 12:46 AM, Jeremy wrote: 



>From what I read it seems like you can collect whatever you want directly from 
>your customers but it may be considered as income and taxed as such. So you 
>can't really pass it on as a direct fee and bypass your income tax liability 
>for it. 




No. Federal billing rules say that you cannot collect more on your retail bill 
for FUSF than you pass along. No markups allowed. Most of the other charges can 
also be passed along one for one, but state rules could vary. 

But the rate is not exactly what you think. The Federal USF rate is calculated 
as a percentage, changed quarterly (it has gone over 17%), of your interstate 
telecommunications service billing. If you are providing local telephone 
service, that line item is not subject to USF as it is intrastate, not 
intersate. Internet access is not subject to USF as it is information service, 
not telecommunications service. The tax was meant to apply to long distance 
calls, which were a lot of money back in the day. 

If you are (as is the norm nowadays) providing a service that does not charge 
explicitly for interstate long distance, then you have two options. There is a 
"safe harbor" of 64.9%, wherein that percentage of the total phone package is 
deemed interstate. So if you sold it for $10/month, the tax would be applied to 
$6.49 of it. This number was computed back when VoIP services were primarily 
used as cheap dial-around long distance, not as primary lines, so the "PIU" 
(percentage interstate use -- this number comes up a LOT in telecom billing) 
was high. 

You can also compute what percentage of your calls are actually interstate, and 
pay USF on that percentage of the bill. This involves filling out the Form 
499-Q's correctly, but it is the norm nowadays. 

Bear in mind that there is a "de minimis" rule. If you would owe less than 
$10k/year, then you only file Form 499-A (annual, vs. quarterly), and don't pay 
anything. BUT you then are treated as a retail customer of your wholesale 
provider(s), and *they* collect USF on what they bill you. If you are no de 
minimis, and do actually pay USF, then you tell that to your providers, who 
have to verify it against FCC records, and then they don't charge you USF. It's 
sort of like a retailer's exemption on sales tax; it's only collected once. 
Note that this whole system is on the docket at the FCC and they're still 
thinking about how to revise it, but don't seem to have a consensus, so they're 
just putting it off. 





On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Chris Fabien < ch...@lakenetmi.com > wrote: 



That looks about right, it varies by state/locality of course. We collect 
Federal USF, State use tax, state and county E911. The USF you get to pocket 
until your required contributions are $10k/year - under that you are considered 
"de minimus" and just have to file the annual form. 

When we set up our billing the Telecom Relay Fund passed under our radar so now 
we're just paying for that out of pocket. I'm not sure if you are allowed to 
collect that specifically from your customers as well. 


On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I am attempting to figure out all of the taxes for VoiP and the main thing that 
has me confused is the Universal Service Fund. It seems that my state (Utah) 
has a USF of 0.45% 
http://www.psc.state.ut.us/utilities/telecom/documents/Rule%20746-360%20amendment.rtf
 

Then it also seems like the Feds want 15.1%?? That is huge! 
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contribution-factor-quarterly-filings-universal-service-fund-usf-management-support
 

Then there is sales and use tax of 
State Sales & Use - 4.7% 
Municipality Sales & Use - varies - see 
http://tax.utah.gov/salestax/rate/13q3combined.pdf 

Then we have E911: 

E911 State - .08 
E911 County - .61 
Poison Control - .07 
--- 
Total for E911 - .76 

Then, since October 2011 we are also liable for the Telecommunications Relay 
Fund - .06 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-150A1.pdf 


___ 
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.

Re: [WISPA] Maxxwave router MTU problem / question

[Faisal Imtiaz]

HI Scott, 

I bet you if you dropped a quick email with this question to Brian at Baltic 
networks you will get your answer. 


Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 


- Original Message -

From: "Scott Carullo"  
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 4:07:08 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] Maxxwave router MTU problem / question 

I know these are fairly popular routers so I was wondering if anyone has seen 
this issue before 

Mikrotik v5.24 or 5.25 - go to ethernet interface and open an interface, I 
can't increase the MTU size greater then the default 1500. Some of the Maxxwave 
routers I can. No rhyme or reason between them I can tell - some just allow the 
MTU change some don't. Not sure if this is MT fubar or some other issue with 
the device. Anyone? Thanks 

Scott Carullo 
Technical Operations 
855-FLSPEED 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] Netflix Open Connect Platform

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yep ! it is nice to off load like this, for us, Netflix is very small, (most of 
our customers are business).
Bulk of the traffic you see on the chart, is for a couple of other ISP's that 
we are peering with in Miami... 


BTW... we are working on getting connected to the NOTA Peering Fabric in Miami 
too... that is a bit more expensive and challenging. However when costs are 
spread across a number of folks, they become rather palatable.

Last thing I was pushing for, was having the Google folks connect to the Route 
Servers are the Public Peering excahnges, so that smaller ISP's like us can 
take advantage of such an arrangement (i.e. no minimum traffic levels required).

The are internally discussing the possibility of doing so.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: "Carlos Alcantar" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:23:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Faisal,

Your traffic looks similar to ours based on %'s.  Netflix and Akamai at
the top traffic list.

Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com





-Original Message-
From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:07 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

If you are talking about connecting via public peering..

Please see enclosed pdf...

Our traffic...

Hopefully this will answer some questions..

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
From: m...@tc3net.com
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:00:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Faisal,

Are you sure? I have recently contacted Netflix about just such an
arrangement, they require 2 GB/s as a minimum with a 10 GB interconnect.
If you have a representative from Netflix who says different, please send
it to me offlist, as we are very interested in peering with Netflix and
have access to some of their listed peering points.

Regards
Michael Baird

- Original Message -
From: "Joey Craig" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:53:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

If anyone is actually using this service, can your hit me offline at
joey.cr...@firenet1.com or give me a call at (662) 510-0764. My boss as
well
as myself have a few questions about the service.

Joey Craig 
Network/RF Engineer
Firenet1.Com
Phone:  (662) 510-0764
Mobile: (662) 404-1118
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Let me take this into a greater amount of detail:-


There are 'Public Peering Exchanges', these are either operated by a
ColoFacility Owner or an independent entity.

e.g. Telx (Telx Internet Exchange)  (http://tie.telx.com)
 Anyone can purchase a 1gig port or a 10gig port connection to the TIE
Peering Fabric.
 There is a cost attached for this, and in case of Telx, it is paid to
Telx.

Once one is connected to a Peering Fabric such as this on.. then one is
free
to peer with anyone who wishes to peer with them at this Peering Fabric.

Netflix, is present at a number of these peering points, and at these
peering points, there is no minimum traffic level requirement from them
==

The other type of peering would be if one was to Build a transport
Connection to the Entity (Netflix e.g.), and have netflix allocate a port
on
their router, to have dedicated private peering.

This would need to be negotiated with them, and would very likely carry
minimum traffic level requirement.

I believe this option is great if you are an isp utilizing 10g connections
to the net.

For most of us, connecting via a Public Peering Exchange is the most
economically feasible option.

Regards.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
From: m...@tc3net.com
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:03:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Faisal,

Do you just need to pay for the Cross Connect?

Open Connect requires 5 GB sustained from your AS's.

Regards
Michael Baird

- Original Message -
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
To: "WISPA General List" 

Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Mike,
Feel free to call me .. it might be easier to discuss this on the phone.

(BTW, most of the Senior Network folks responsible for Netflix Peering hang out 
on the NANOG list)

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: m...@tc3net.com
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:00:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Faisal,

Are you sure? I have recently contacted Netflix about just such an arrangement, 
they require 2 GB/s as a minimum with a 10 GB interconnect. If you have a 
representative from Netflix who says different, please send it to me offlist, 
as we are very interested in peering with Netflix and have access to some of 
their listed peering points.

Regards
Michael Baird

- Original Message -
From: "Joey Craig" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:53:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

If anyone is actually using this service, can your hit me offline at
joey.cr...@firenet1.com or give me a call at (662) 510-0764. My boss as well
as myself have a few questions about the service.

Joey Craig 
Network/RF Engineer
Firenet1.Com
Phone:  (662) 510-0764
Mobile: (662) 404-1118
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Let me take this into a greater amount of detail:-


There are 'Public Peering Exchanges', these are either operated by a
ColoFacility Owner or an independent entity.

e.g. Telx (Telx Internet Exchange)  (http://tie.telx.com)
 Anyone can purchase a 1gig port or a 10gig port connection to the TIE
Peering Fabric.
 There is a cost attached for this, and in case of Telx, it is paid to Telx.

Once one is connected to a Peering Fabric such as this on.. then one is free
to peer with anyone who wishes to peer with them at this Peering Fabric.

Netflix, is present at a number of these peering points, and at these
peering points, there is no minimum traffic level requirement from them
==

The other type of peering would be if one was to Build a transport
Connection to the Entity (Netflix e.g.), and have netflix allocate a port on
their router, to have dedicated private peering.

This would need to be negotiated with them, and would very likely carry
minimum traffic level requirement.

I believe this option is great if you are an isp utilizing 10g connections
to the net.

For most of us, connecting via a Public Peering Exchange is the most
economically feasible option.

Regards.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: m...@tc3net.com
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:03:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Faisal,

Do you just need to pay for the Cross Connect?

Open Connect requires 5 GB sustained from your AS's.

Regards
Michael Baird

- Original Message -
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:59:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Sorry for the late reply.

We have a 1G connection to the TIE.
Peering with Netflix over a peering exchange does not have any traffic
requirements.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Lyon" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:41:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

You have to peer with them at 10g, right? Or do they have other options?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:09, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

> We are peering with them on the Telx TIE in Atlanta.
> (We are not only using this connection for our own network peering, but
also have a few other ISP, which are interconnected, utilizing this peering
connection... some in Atlanta, other in Miami)
>
> :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Lyon" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 1:34:25 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform
>
> Anyone been able to connect up with Netflix on this

Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Let me take this into a greater amount of detail:-


There are 'Public Peering Exchanges', these are either operated by a 
ColoFacility Owner or an independent entity.

e.g. Telx (Telx Internet Exchange)  (http://tie.telx.com)
 Anyone can purchase a 1gig port or a 10gig port connection to the TIE Peering 
Fabric.
 There is a cost attached for this, and in case of Telx, it is paid to Telx.

Once one is connected to a Peering Fabric such as this on.. then one is free to 
peer with anyone who wishes to peer with them at this Peering Fabric.

Netflix, is present at a number of these peering points, and at these peering 
points, there is no minimum traffic level requirement from them
==

The other type of peering would be if one was to Build a transport  Connection 
to the Entity (Netflix e.g.), and have netflix allocate a port on their router, 
to have dedicated private peering.

This would need to be negotiated with them, and would very likely carry minimum 
traffic level requirement.

I believe this option is great if you are an isp utilizing 10g connections to 
the net.

For most of us, connecting via a Public Peering Exchange is the most 
economically feasible option.

Regards.


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: m...@tc3net.com
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:03:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Faisal,

Do you just need to pay for the Cross Connect?

Open Connect requires 5 GB sustained from your AS's.

Regards
Michael Baird

- Original Message -
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:59:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

Sorry for the late reply.

We have a 1G connection to the TIE.
Peering with Netflix over a peering exchange does not have any traffic 
requirements.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Lyon" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:41:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

You have to peer with them at 10g, right? Or do they have other options?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:09, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

> We are peering with them on the Telx TIE in Atlanta.
> (We are not only using this connection for our own network peering, but also 
> have a few other ISP, which are interconnected, utilizing this peering 
> connection... some in Atlanta, other in Miami)
>
> :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Lyon" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 1:34:25 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform
>
> Anyone been able to connect up with Netflix on this new platform?
>
> -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
___
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

Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Sorry for the late reply.

We have a 1G connection to the TIE.
Peering with Netflix over a peering exchange does not have any traffic 
requirements.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: "Mike Lyon" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:41:49 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform

You have to peer with them at 10g, right? Or do they have other options?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 10, 2013, at 13:09, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

> We are peering with them on the Telx TIE in Atlanta.
> (We are not only using this connection for our own network peering, but also 
> have a few other ISP, which are interconnected, utilizing this peering 
> connection... some in Atlanta, other in Miami)
>
> :)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Mike Lyon" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 1:34:25 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Netflix Open Connect Platform
>
> Anyone been able to connect up with Netflix on this new platform?
>
> -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
___
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] Metal building parapet wall mount for 3ft dish question

[Faisal Imtiaz]

one could also create a mount such as WM1665 

With the use of Uni-Strut and All thread rods. 
Use clamps to hold the 1"1/2 or 2" mast to the Uni-Strut 

For what it is worth, in the picture it would appear that there is (possibly) 
metal beams under there where the panels are screwed in. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

From: "Scott Reed"  
To: "lakeland" , "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:51:00 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Metal building parapet wall mount for 3ft dish question 

Nello has mounts specifically for this, too. 

On 5/26/2013 11:38 AM, lakeland wrote: 



Scott, 

Its either brick with metal covering it or it hollow with light steel H beam 
construction. 

If its block underneath or if its steel I would drill all the way through and 
sandwich the wall on each side. 

We would use a Site Pro 1 WM1665 or SP250-6 with 2 pieces of 3 x 3 angle on the 
back side. 

If the wall is hollow just dandwich both sides of a vertical beam. 

You may need to notch out the metal for the mount to sit flush against the 
beam. 

If its block you just need to shim up the mount to accomodate the corrugated 
surface. Site Pro sells square backer washers that can be used for this. 

Bob 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone 



 Original message  
From: Scott Carullo  
Date: 05/26/2013 10:09 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: wireless@wispa.org 
Subject: [WISPA] Metal building parapet wall mount for 3ft dish question 


I've never disassembled a parapet wall on a metal building to see whats back 
behind the sheet metal that runs vertical on the roof side of the parapet wall, 
but I need to know whats back there and the best way to attach a 3ft licensed 
radio and dish and the mount needs to be beefy - as in welded galvanized mount 
that probably weighs 50 pounds itself. I'm going to need to tie into something 
substantial behind the flimsy wall sheet metal. I've mounted lighter loads to 
these walls but I just need this to stay put - it can't flex or move at all I 
have 3deg to work with on 11ghz and its out of town. 

Anyone know of a mount that works good for this or can tell me whats back in 
there? They must all be made similarly as every metal building I've seen is 
built the same. I have included a link to a photo showing exactly what it looks 
like. Dish needs to go next to the other jpole there - I have no idea what that 
is and I didn't put it there fyi :) 

Thanks, appreciate it. 

Link - http://flhsi.com/files/parapet.jpg 

Scott Carullo 
Technical Operations 
855-FLSPEED x102 



___
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: 2013.0.3343 / Virus Database: 3184/6359 - Release Date: 05/26/13 


-- 
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
(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

Re: [WISPA] Portable Alternators?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

A couple of ideas for in-expensive AC power monitoring 

1. The Canary Method. 
Take a busted radio, any device that can hold an ip address,. respond to pings, 
power it using AC, and use ping monitoring to determine loss of AC Power. 

2 The Mikrotik Method (if your Model of MT has Voltage Monitor). 
If you are using a Mikrotik Router @ Site. Mikrotik Routers can be powered 
using two sources of Power. One on the DC Jack and other on POE (port1). 
By default it will use the power sources with the higher voltage as primary. 
Use this method to power the MT from AC power, as well as DC Power... 
There is a nice script ( 
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Monitor_input_voltage_on_RB333/433AH ), that 
allows you to monitor the Voltage, and send email of a change in voltage is 
detected. 

3. The GregSowell Method. 
Create an ethernet loopback plug using a small relay.. 
http://gregsowell.com/?p=2093 

There are other more fancy devices that will give you alters too.. the above 
are the inexpensive versions... 


Regards. 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -

From: "Roger Howard"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 10:14:25 PM 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Portable Alternators? 

Alternatively, run your equipment on DC from an Iota DLS charger, which is 
constantly trickle charging some batteries. When the power goes out, it will 
run a lot longer because you're not converting (like a UPS) from DC coming out 
of your batteries to AC and then converting from AC back to DC again in a POE 
to power the radio. 

Just use DC to DC converters to get the different DC voltages you need to run 
your various equipment. 

Plug your generator into the Iota charger to power it. I bet you'll get clean 
DC out of it. Especially if a battery is plugged in, which I think will help 
smooth out the DC current. I haven't tested it, but we're using DC everywhere. 
Just don't have to use a generator since the battery backup lasts so long. 

I recently had a tower with 6 radios on it, which had two deep cycle marine 
batteries from walmart. Someone somehow left the breaker off after working on 
the site. It ran for 3 days directly off the batteries before going down. We 
now have to monitor each the site is being fed by AC or not. Haven't got around 
to that yet. Maybe some mFi will help with this. Except the single port mFi 
doesn't have ethernet. 

Cheers! 
Roger 
G5 Internet, LLC 


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Blair Davis < the...@wmwisp.net > wrote: 



Especially with those small, cheap 2-cycle, 800-1000W generators, a 200-400W 
light stabilizes it well. 

-- 


On 5/8/2013 1:27 PM, Joel Mulkey wrote: 



We've noticed that our cheap generators won't charge the UPSs back up without 
some extra load to stabilize things. To provide that load we include a 500w or 
1000w halogen construction light with each generator kit. Plug the light in and 
the voltage stabilizes, which allows the UPS to kick back on to the line power. 
It also provides some nice lighting if it's at night.

Joel Mulkey
CIO
Freewire
Direct: 503-616-2557 | Support: 503-614-8282 http://www.gofreewire.com 
http://twitter.com/FreewireNetwork On May 8, 2013, at 10:17 AM, 
wireless-requ...@wispa.org wrote: 



This is the third time in about two years that we've had some major 
power outages across our region due to the supplier lines going down.

Every time the situation is the same,

We roll out our portable generators to a few of our smaller sites that 
don't have full-time generators -- and every time we have to fight with 
them to get clean power out of them -- usually just ending up putting 
equipment directly on the generators and bypassing the UPS systems.

I've seen the generators go everywhere from 40Hz to 90Hz.

Has anyone come across a nice portable alternator (as opposed to a 
generator) that can be taken to tower sites as supplementary power?

~ Matt 



___
Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 



-- 
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan  49010 269-686-8648 A Division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC 

___ 
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] Climb Safety vendor

[Faisal Imtiaz]

CTI was carrying Elk River.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message -
From: "Scott Reed" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:32:45 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Climb Safety vendor

Who is a good source for Elk River harnesses, etc.?

-- 
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
(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

Re: [WISPA] Dealing with ice

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Good Times..  Good Times
   Just admit it .. You all are jealous of the fine fine fine 70 
degree weather we have...
  Air Conditioners are still working over time in Sunny 
Florida !


:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 2/7/2013 5:13 PM, Rick Harnish wrote:


Hmm, Jamaican's spell sledding weird.  Hey maaan, we go sledging, no?

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

*Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:11 PM
*To:* Cliff Leboeuf
*Cc:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Dealing with ice

Hey . Have you not heard of the Jamaican Bob Sledge Team !!!!

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email:supp...@snappydsl.net  
<mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net>

On 2/7/2013 4:02 PM, Cliff Leboeuf wrote:

Ha! Faisal in Miami providing "ice" suggestions... hehe

*From: *Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>
*Reply-To: *Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>, WISPA General List
mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
*Date: *Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:19 PM
*To: *"wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>"
mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Dealing with ice

Seriously consider using RFArmor Shields
They will protect your radios / jumpers and improve performance.

:)


Faisal Imtiaz

Snappy Internet & Telecom

7266 SW 48 Street

Miami, Fl 33155

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email:supp...@snappydsl.net  
<mailto:supp...@snappydsl.net>

On 2/7/2013 3:08 PM, Troy Settle wrote:

I have a site that's sitting at about 4500' that took some
pretty serious ice damage.

In short, we're using UBNT's antennas and the short jumpers
that came with them. Lost about a half-dozen of them during a
recent storm, which really didn't even qualify as an 'ice storm.'

What can I do to help protect these jumpers from getting torn
up by ice?

What was UBNT thinking when they put the RF connectors on TOP
of the rockets?

-Troy




___

Wireless mailing list

Wireless@wispa.org  
<mailto: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] Dealing with ice

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hey . Have you not heard of the Jamaican Bob Sledge Team 

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 2/7/2013 4:02 PM, Cliff Leboeuf wrote:

Ha! Faisal in Miami providing "ice" suggestions… hehe

From: Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>
Reply-To: Faisal Imtiaz <mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net>>, WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>

Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:19 PM
To: "wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>" 
mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dealing with ice

Seriously consider using RFArmor Shields
They will protect your radios / jumpers and improve performance.

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email:supp...@snappydsl.net
On 2/7/2013 3:08 PM, Troy Settle wrote:


I have a site that’s sitting at about 4500’ that took some pretty 
serious ice damage.


In short, we’re using UBNT’s antennas and the short jumpers that came 
with them. Lost about a half-dozen of them during a recent storm, 
which really didn’t even qualify as an ‘ice storm.’


What can I do to help protect these jumpers from getting torn up by ice?

What was UBNT thinking when they put the RF connectors on TOP of the 
rockets?


-Troy



___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Dealing with ice

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Seriously consider using RFArmor Shields
They will protect your radios / jumpers and improve performance.

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 2/7/2013 3:08 PM, Troy Settle wrote:


I have a site that's sitting at about 4500' that took some pretty 
serious ice damage.


In short, we're using UBNT's antennas and the short jumpers that came 
with them.  Lost about a half-dozen of them during a recent storm, 
which really didn't even qualify as an 'ice storm.'


What can I do to help protect these jumpers from getting torn up by ice?

What was UBNT thinking when they put the RF connectors on TOP of the 
rockets?


-Troy



___
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] Ubiquiti airfiber on the same tower...

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Matt,
How would you suggest that the Frequency planning to be done .. when the 
current choices are only two channels ?

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 2/4/2013 9:52 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> This really shouldn't be an issue provided you do proper frequency planning.
>
>
> Matt Hoppes
> Director of Information Technology
> Indigo Wireless
> +1 (570) 723-7312
>
> On 2/4/13 8:48 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I was wondering what is your experience on Airfiber. In particular my
>> question is if the following scenario could work or not work in your
>> opinion/experience
>>
>> On tower at LocationA there are two Airfiber pointing at the same
>> direction LocationB and LocationC, more or less.
>> On the tower at LocationA, the two airfibers are mounted at let's say
>> 1-2 meters distance (horizontal and vertical) and 10 degrees of
>> difference in the 2 directions LocationB and LocationC.
>> LocationB and LocationC are two other towers both pointing at LocationA.
>>
>> I am wondering if at 24Ghz I could see some interference or not , in
>> this situaitons
>>
>> Thank you in advance
>>
> ___
> 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] Ubiquiti airfiber on the same tower...

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Presently doing something like this may be a challenge.

Theoretically you my be able to get way with it ... if
You GPS Sync the radios.
Use the one channel on each of the radios (i.e./ run them half-duplex)
and depending on your distance, get more than 2 m of separation...

Doing something like this could be easier if and when UBNT comes out 
with firmware that can allow smaller channel size.

If you have to do something like this TODAY.. you might consider 
speaking with Trango about their new 24GHz radios.
They will do 1024QAM, and as such more efficient with spectrum, and can 
have smaller channel sizes.

Of-course, channel size will affect throughput.. and the Trango Radios 
are going to be a bit more expensive.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 2/4/2013 8:48 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I was wondering what is your experience on Airfiber. In particular my
> question is if the following scenario could work or not work in your
> opinion/experience
>
> On tower at LocationA there are two Airfiber pointing at the same
> direction LocationB and LocationC, more or less.
> On the tower at LocationA, the two airfibers are mounted at let's say
> 1-2 meters distance (horizontal and vertical) and 10 degrees of
> difference in the 2 directions LocationB and LocationC.
> LocationB and LocationC are two other towers both pointing at LocationA.
>
> I am wondering if at 24Ghz I could see some interference or not , in
> this situaitons
>
> Thank you in advance
>

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless