Re: [WISPA] OT Backup Program

[fred]

http://www.backupanswers.com/freewinbackup/ (just recently found this
one and am trying it out)

http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/products/trueimage/ (this one
works well and I have used it)

On 4/7/06, Brian Rohrbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.directdeals.com/category-arcserve-backup.aspx?ovchn=OTHER&ovcpn=Froogle&ovcrn=ARCserve+Backup&ovtac=PPC
>
> It looks like a little too much for me.  :)
>
> NEXT!
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Best system for a new WISP

[fred]

Might I inquire as to where the dishes can be had for $40?

On 4/10/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's on quantity 30 $149 each. 5.8ghz, dual polarity, up to 3
> miles (add $40 for a dish and it goes up to 13 miles) and delivers up to
> 10Mbps. Hard to beat! And with SmartPolling on the AP, you can get
> hundreds of customers per sector.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes

[fred]

I haven't seen any of the technical specifications that this would
call for. Sure, easy enough to mirror a port.

Are the requirements just that? So that law enforcement can come plug
in and 'tap' your network? Or do they require access from anywhere so
that they can, at any instance get that information without real
'physical' access to an isp's network?

Just questions... I certainly could have missed something in what I
read about it...

~fred


On 5/3/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 Hi,

 This really isn't that hard. Put a fully manageable switch in front of your
backbone router to the internet and mirror the port(s). Done.

 We do this already to gather stats and find infected customers.

 Travis
 Microserv


 Dylan Oliver wrote:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6067971.html

 WASHINGTON--Broadband providers and Internet phone companies will have to
pick up the tab for the cost of building in mandatory wiretap access for
police surveillance, federal regulators ruled Wednesday.

 Ooof. So we not only have to ensure that the government can snoop on our
subscribers, but *pay for it*.

 Best,
 --
 Dylan Oliver
 Primaverity, LLC
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Returns to Hyperlinktech.com is it possible?

[fred]

I pretty much just buy their 5, 10 and 25W 802.11b amplifiers ;)

I guess the what and the why plays a role in whether or not a 'refund'
is expected. I generally am happy with a credit because I plan to do
more business with a vendor/distributor.

Now, I got burned by a south florida cctv dealer and had to get Amex
involved. All over the fact that the dvr card they sent was missing
the breakout pigtail that made the thing usable and they could/would
not get the part sent to me. That part was probably a $15 part and it
cost them WAY more than that - amex charged back the full order amount
including almost $100 in ups red costs - at least that was the s/h
cost they had passed on to me.

Not that geography has ANYTHING to do with anything...

I haven't purchased much from Hyperlinktech but the small orders I've
placed were fulfilled and shipped to my satisfaction and i haven't had
cause to try their return/rma/credit policy.
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Is this legit email from eBay or a phishing scam?

[fred]

can one hijack a subdomain or pages on ebay.com?
the first click is click3.ebay.com

the whois stuff on ebaymainstreet.com is definitely bizarre but...

this message is copied in My Ebay in my online message box. so pretty
sure it's legit.

now, will they change around how they send a message like that in the
future - i'd bet money on it.

~fred


On 6/2/06, Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

All of ebay lives in  66.135.192.0/19 or 66.135.192.0 - 66.135.223.255
as per there
whois info. ebaymainstreet lives at 161.58.14.93  :BIG RED FLAG:

Jeromie



David E. Smith wrote:

>Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>>EBAYMAINSTREET.COM is registered to ebay, inc.
>>If you don't have a WHOIS, go to Networksolutions.com and check WHOIS
>>either the IP address or domain.
>>
>>
>
>Only a really dumb scammer (but I repeat myself...) would use his home
>address instead of putting in eBay's address, which is easy enough to get.
>
>(On paper, all domains are supposed to have accurate and current contact
>information listed in their registrar's WHOIS data. In practice, this
>rule is very rarely enforced.)
>
>Actually, the WHOIS data made me do a few double-takes. Note that
>ebaymainstreet.com doesn't use the same DNS servers as, say, ebay.com.
>
>David Smith
>MVN.net
>
>

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Wyoming locations that need service

[fred]

wyoming.com and visionary are the only other 2 i'm aware of, but
something tells me you probably already know of them. folks from
either of them could be on this list, i just haven't seen any posts...
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] $100 CPE?

[fred]

for the trango stuff in 100qty the dishes are $36. and for what it's
worth we plan on trying out the atlas fox gear immediately as it looks
to have a good place in our network. non-proprietary gear likely will
always have a place too.

but that's beside the point. What highgainantennas is putting out has
a version that includes a 12db antenna still under $100. Yes it is a
802.11b/g unit but there are many hookups every day using a CB3 or
equiv.

http://www.highgainantennas.com/category_s/87.htm

Price with a 12db panel is $92 and has a 400mw radio in it. I sure
think plenty of Wisps will at the very least try this thing out.
Different tools for different problems...

It sounds like they are shipping these very soon too.

On 6/27/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

That they are working on "developing" a new product that will have bugs,
hardware issues, etc. for the first 6-12 months. Trying to get to $100
(without antenna, BTW).

Trango has a $149 unit that is from a company that is established, it
has a built in antenna, PoE, etc. and is ready to go today. For $30
more, the range goes from 3 miles to 13 miles. ;)

Travis
Microserv

Brian Rohrbacher wrote:

> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15749577
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16364972
>
>
>
> What does everyone think?
>
>
>
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] $100 CPE?

[fred]

QTY 30 is what i meant. unless they offer larger quantities a steeper
discount that is not reflected on their online catalog...

On 6/27/06, fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

for the trango stuff in 100qty the dishes are $36.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] New FCC Form 477 is up

[fred]

it opens for me and the pull downs work with open office 1.9.1

On 7/13/06, Mark Koskenmaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

They still haven't learned.   If you don't use MS Office, the form can't
even be OPENED, open office says it's "password protected" and "read only"
and exits.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!

-
- Original Message -
From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:26 AM
Subject: [WISPA] New FCC Form 477 is up


> I remember what a bleepstorm this was a few months back, so I'm afraid
> to say it, but what the heck.
>
> The new FCC Form 477, due on September 1st for the first half of this
> year, is now available at the usual place
> ( http://www.fcc.gov/formpage.html )
>
> Remember that, as of the March 2006 filing, all broadband ISPs, even
> those with less than 250 customers, are required to file Form 477.
>
> David Smith
> MVN.net
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Neat Antenna Source - High Gain 5ghz Omnis

[fred]

Has anyone tried any of these? Junk, usable, good? No gamblers?

Furthermore how would one order one?

thanks!
fred

On 6/14/06, JohnnyO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




A BUNCH of us have been asking for higher gain omnis for the 5ghz range.
Looks like our wishes have been answered.

http://www.asiarf.com/Product/rfproduc/omniantenna.html
Not sure on pricing but may be worth looking into - they've got 15dBi Omnis
in all of the 5ghz ranges ! YES !

JohnnyO
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Not me, no way!

[fred]

Some bad editing (i mean movie magic)... how did he get from being
hooked around a post to the middle of the cross members ;)

i think it is cool though! except what exactly is their job? It looks
like there's a marker light on the opposite top piece but not the one
they're on.

have fun.

On 8/28/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

http://www.pockethercules.com/broadcast_detail16.html

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Not me, no way!

[fred]

What browser are you using?
If you load it in IE it will show up in
C:\Documents and Settings\user name\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files
I usually just sort by size if trying to grab a media file.

not sure how other browsers handle it.

or... right click and save link/target as...
http://www.pockethercules.com/video/coke%20tower001.mov

~fred

On 8/28/06, Gino A. Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Great video !!!1

Anyone knows has to save this to disk ?

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:44 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Not me, no way!

http://www.pockethercules.com/broadcast_detail16.html

Marlon
(509) 982-2181   Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Not me, no way!

[fred]

On 8/28/06, Blake Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Are you sure you are looking at the same climber?


yup. same climber. at the end as he throws himself back.





But anyways, to answer your question, about what
their job is - its to act in a commercial!



- Original Message -
From: "fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Not me, no way!


> Some bad editing (i mean movie magic)... how did he get from being
> hooked around a post to the middle of the cross members ;)
>
> i think it is cool though! except what exactly is their job? It looks
> like there's a marker light on the opposite top piece but not the one
> they're on.
>
> have fun.

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

[fred]

Why in the world, I want to know, are organ availability notifications
going out via email???!!! Seriously. How fun will it be when they
start serving subpeonas and such that way - What I never got that
email??

~fred

On 12/16/06, Mike Ireton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


The really interesting part of this:


>
> The attack cut off service for one woman who was waiting for an e-mail
> notifying her about the availability of an organ transplant that she
> required, according to prosecutors. Because of her critical status, her
> provider gave her priority status and restored her access within 24 hours.
>
> "Had her medical providers sent her an e-mail notifying her of a
> suitable organ donor and had she not responded because of her lost
> Internet access, she might have lost her priority for an organ, thus
> potentially extending the period she would have to wait for another
> donor," wrote prosecutors in the indictment.
>

   People are starting to believe their email is guaranteed and that their
computers can be entrusted with life saving information. Worse yet, it
appears these prosecutors would have trumped this up and made hay out of
it had her mail not gotten there. So in another context - what if the
stock pump and dump scammers started using wrapper text that mentioned
organ donations to the point of poisoning the Bayesian databases of all
spamassassin enabled mail servers? What if the mail has been blocked
outright due to other spam filtering already in place? Or put into a
quarantine and she didn't look in her quarantine box in time? Or if the
sending server of the mail was on an RBL due to some other user at the
site sending spam to spamcop spamtraps for example?

   Drama is drama. I think what this guy did was reprehensible and he
certainly deserves the clink, but what he did is not any kind of threat
or risk to health and safety - the stupidity of using email and
computers for life saving communications IS.

$0.02

Mike-

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] A wisp who went a little too far.......

[fred]

Just as clarification, I am not at all giving pass to this guy's
actions or anyone who intentionally or knowingly disrupts any service
of any kind.

I certainly hope though that I'm not going to be held liable if
someone comes suing me because literally their life depending on the
delivery of an email. I don't care how good of system for email
handling one has, there are too many failure points and places where
things can go wrong, many of which are totally out of my control.

I also truly hope I nor any one close to me needs an organ transplant
if email is how vitally important notifications are sent.

"I'm sorry sir, you do not qualify for a transplant because you
indicated on your application you have neither a computer nor an email
address."

~fred
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Boeing Fails to Learn from WISPs

[fred]

An antenna in every row of seats??!!

~fred

On 1/27/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Boeing is dropping it's plans to offer wireless access on the new 787
Dreamliner. It will be using a WIRED network instead.


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Service Offerings, By Speed or All You Can Eat? Was:Advanced Bandwidth Management

[fred]

George Rogato wrote:
> Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
>
>> He's back down, close to a normal user now and loves his
>> netflix.  It's a FAR more cost effective mechanism for getting
>> his movies to him.
>
> Netflix has started doing an online download your movie deal. The
> dvd's will eventually go out of favor.
>
> So, back to "how are we going to handle this" in comparison to DSL and
> Cable providers, who most likely will prtner with netflix and others
> and not have  cap on their usage.


I wouldn't say that they have no cap. Just unpublished and not easy to
determine it seems.
Is my math way off or is 300GB/month only approx 1Mbps (999kbps) sustained?


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] It's been a ride... Some up, some down.

[Fred Goldstein]

At 5/3/2012 08:41 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Personally I don't think there is hardly anyone on the WISPA list that
>is in disagreement over having the same views as Mark from the political
>standpoint..
>
>The radical difference is over how to deal with it ...

Well, I may disagree with Mark and some other members of the list on 
many political points, but I don't let that get in the way of our 
mutual interests. You can disagree without being disagreeable, and 
concentrate on collaborating on your mutual interests.  I even 
disagree on some of the positions WISPA apparently took.  I think 
ARRA was a good program, just too small, though BIP itself was 
basically a boondoggle.  But a WISP I'm hoping to get going soon is 
dependent on BTOP middle mile fiber, as are some other projects I'm 
aware of, as is one local government project I'm now working on.  In 
some states it's a real game changer.  (And yeah, in some it's 
turning out to be a disaster, but that's a different story.)

But the key point is that no matter how you feel about the way the 
game is being played in Washington, either you participate, or you 
should stop complaining about it.  For the average person, 
participation is as easy as voting; for a business in a regulated 
industry, it may involve a lot more.

Things used to work better there in the past when both sides could 
sit down and negotiate their differences, trading off with each other 
until the best compromise could be met.  People who believe that 
compromise is inherenty bad are preventing progress, and they aren't 
making things better for their side either. Likewise, all of that 
"government is always the problem" talk is not realistic.  There are 
all sorts of things that you need government to do, from enforcing 
contracts (lest you need a mafia take over that role, as happened in 
Russia in the 1990s), to building public infrastructure, to keeping 
the food and water safe.  You don't miss the water until the well 
runs dry; if you don't want government, try Somalia.  If you don't 
agree with our government, then at least try to make yourself 
heard.  Even if it is so corrupted by big money that it sometimes 
feels like a waste of time.  Reclaim democracy, don't surrender it.

WISPA has done great things in representing the industry.  Things 
could certainly be worse.  The FCC has waged a War on ISPs for the 
past 11 years.  It has killed off most of the wireline ISPs, most of 
whom were also small businesspeople playing by the rules.  Some have 
survived by going wireless, others by being really really good at 
what they do and keeping their niche markets alive, but it hasn't 
been easy.  Had the rest of the small-ISP industry organized itself a 
quarter as well as WISPA has, then things might have come out a lot 
differently for them.  Not that CLECs have done so well either, 
though frankly I think they were largely collateral damage, because 
ISPs depended on them.

Now the FCC has opened up the question of whether and how WISPs and 
other ISPs should pay into the Universal Service Fund.  So again the 
fact that this group is organized should come in handy.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF

[Fred Goldstein]

At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote:
>Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to
>wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl?  They
>should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to
>work?

In fact, that *was* the rule.  Or at least they had to wholesale the 
DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS.  When the FCC detariffed 
DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the 
subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF.

The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they 
allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information 
service, and still get subsidized.  That's how they want to "improve" 
broadband availability.  Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were 
active in getting that passed? ;-)

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF

[Fred Goldstein]

At 5/29/2012 12:40 PM, MarlonS wrote:
>Right.
>
>And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed.

Trouble is, that rule already passed.  CAF now "will" subsidize "broadband".

>We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service
>then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market.
>
>Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities
>based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off
>to the USF/CAF recipient.

Yes, and WISPA has petitioned to change that detail, though whether 
they accept it is anybody's guess.  Now is a good time to add voice 
to your product mix if you don't have it yet.

I did receive in the morning mail two Notices of Appeal.  They're 
from groups of rural ILECs who are unhappy with the other changes in 
the CAF order.  In particular, the FCC is limiting support to the 
highest-cost ILECs, and using TeleAtlas data to determine the size of 
their service areas.  Apparently the TeleAtlas maps omit some 
territory.  It's sort of hard to figure out where a wireline 
company's turf is when their density is less than one sub per square 
mile.  They do theoretically file maps with their tariffs, but 
they're hard to find, usually fuzzy from decades of copying, and not 
available in electronic form.  Hence very very costly GIS maps from 
TeleAtlas are assembled over time and may not be accurate.  It 
strikes me as rather strange that there is no official electronic map 
of ILEC or even USF-recipient turf, so they are still arguing over 
it.  And that's easier to map than wireless coverage.

The currently-open Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is over how 
to change the way USF taxes work.  They are looking at several 
options.  Among them,
- tax ISPs
- tax telephone numbers
- tax circuits based on size, not cost

The latter two are gimmicks.  The first one threatens WISPs.

>We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2
>out full count and Casey is at bat.
>
>Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by?
>
>marlon
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
>
>
> > At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote:
> >>Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to
> >>wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl?  They
> >>should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to
> >>work?
> >
> > In fact, that *was* the rule.  Or at least they had to wholesale the
> > DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS.  When the FCC detariffed
> > DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the
> > subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF.
> >
> > The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they
> > allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information
> > service, and still get subsidized.  That's how they want to "improve"
> > broadband availability.  Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were
> > active in getting that passed? ;-)
> >
> >  --
> >  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
> >  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
> >  +1 617 795 2701
> >
> > ___
> > Wireless mailing list
> > Wireless@wispa.org
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF

[Fred Goldstein]

At 5/29/2012 01:05 PM, Randy Cosby wrote:
>"Facilities Based" excludes all fixed wireless, is that correct?

No.  The "unsubsidized competitor" rule includes fixed wireless.

>Would VoIP - properly reported, taxed, etc. - qualify as voice?

Yes.  It has to meet reasonable quality standards, provide E911 
access, and have a local number, but the multiplexing header is not a 
disqualifier.  So if you can find a VoIP provider with local numbers 
in your area and can get say an MPLS pipe to them, it would do.  In 
some extreme cases you may need to fimd a CLEC willing to add service 
in your area, or create your own CLEC.

>Randy
>
>On 5/29/2012 10:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote:
> > Right.
> >
> > And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed.
> >
> > We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized service
> > then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market.
> >
> > Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both *facilities
> > based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut off
> > to the USF/CAF recipient.
> >
> > We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of runs, 2
> > out full count and Casey is at bat.
> >
> > Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly by?
> >
> > marlon
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Fred Goldstein" 
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
> >
> >
> >> At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote:
> >>> Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to
> >>> wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl?  They
> >>> should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to
> >>> work?
> >> In fact, that *was* the rule.  Or at least they had to wholesale the
> >> DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS.  When the FCC detariffed
> >> DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the
> >> subsidized rural ILECs stayed on tariff in order to maximize their USF.
> >>
> >> The new Connect America Fund rules make one major change -- they
> >> allow the ILEC to detariff DSL, offer it only as a retail information
> >> service, and still get subsidized.  That's how they want to "improve"
> >> broadband availability.  Gee, do you think any telco lobbyists were
> >> active in getting that passed? ;-)
> >>

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF

[Fred Goldstein]

At 6/1/2012 12:38 PM, MarlonS wrote:
>I'm not sure that any sort of CLEC that you are piped into would count Fred.
>That's not facilities based.  They are, but the company providing service
>isn't.  And the rules specifically state that the voice provider has to be
>facilities based.

>It may be fuzzy though.  I know our voice circuits here in Odessa are
>switched in another town unless the fiber gets cut.  Then an old local
>switch kicks in or some such thing.  Go figure.

The rule is flexible.  The "unsubsidized competitor" has to provide 
voice service but it doesn't say how they get it.  They do not have 
to be a CLEC. So they could buy wholesale facilities from a CLEC and 
use VoIP to mux it onto the wireless.  I don't think they could 
resell the ILEC voice though.  Using any CLEC switch is "facilities based".

>Either way, we need to keep pushing just like our competitors are.
>
>Fred, what are your long term thoughts of voip?  I think it's going to go
>down the drain just like all other land lines are starting to do.  I think
>there will be business lines and a few home phones.  But in the next 10 or
>20 years I'll bet less than half the land lines out there will exist.
>(Unless they are required for data services also.)

I don't think mobile phones will replace land lines for the big 
users.  Frankly the sound quality sucks, and the newer smartphones 
are worse than the old ones to use as phones.  Voice is an 
afterthought on them.  So you end up needing a wire-type handset or a 
headset to do any talking, and the headset is still on the crappy 
mobile network.  Good quality voice will retain a market, though 
wireline will decline somewhat, and VoIP as a product (vs. an 
internal technology) may be peaking.

>marlon
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:40 AM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
>
>
> > At 5/29/2012 01:05 PM, Randy Cosby wrote:
> >>"Facilities Based" excludes all fixed wireless, is that correct?
> >
> > No.  The "unsubsidized competitor" rule includes fixed wireless.
> >
> >>Would VoIP - properly reported, taxed, etc. - qualify as voice?
> >
> > Yes.  It has to meet reasonable quality standards, provide E911
> > access, and have a local number, but the multiplexing header is not a
> > disqualifier.  So if you can find a VoIP provider with local numbers
> > in your area and can get say an MPLS pipe to them, it would do.  In
> > some extreme cases you may need to fimd a CLEC willing to add service
> > in your area, or create your own CLEC.
> >
> >>Randy
> >>
> >>On 5/29/2012 10:40 AM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote:
> >> > Right.
> >> >
> >> > And that's why we still have to fight they current rules as proposed.
> >> >
> >> > We've made the statement that if any company offers un subsidized
> >> > service
> >> > then no one should get a tax payer funded leg up in the market.
> >> >
> >> > Under the current rules a SINGLE company has to provide both
> >> > *facilities
> >> > based *voice and broadband without subsidies before the faucet is shut
> >> > off
> >> > to the USF/CAF recipient.
> >> >
> >> > We're in the bottom of the 9th inning and we're down by a couple of
> >> > runs, 2
> >> > out full count and Casey is at bat.
> >> >
> >> > Are we going to swing at the ball or just stand there and watch it fly
> >> > by?
> >> >
> >> > marlon
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > - Original Message -
> >> > From: "Fred Goldstein" 
> >> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> >> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 11:16 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] USF/CAF
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> At 5/25/2012 01:03 PM, Matt wrote:
> >> >>> Perhaps anyone accepting money from these funds should be required to
> >> >>> wholesale there services at a discount such as dry loop dsl?  They
> >> >>> should also not be allowed to price under cut wholesalers for that to
> >> >>> work?
> >> >> In fact, that *was* the rule.  Or at least they had to wholesale the
> >> >> DSL, even if it was bundled with cheap POTS.  When the FCC detariffed
> >> >> DSL in 2005, it was permissive, so the Bells could detariff while the
> >> >> subsi

Re: [WISPA] Happy Independence Day!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 6/29/2012 08:45 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:

...
In my years in this industry, it is clear that some fail, as well as 
some become a sterling example of what I consider my industry is 
primarily made of, girt, fortitude, honesty, common sense, gumption, 
imaginativeness (check it out, it is a word =), resourcefulness ... 
oh well, you get the picture =)


With that said, I have to make my comment.
It is one as an individual and not necessarily representing the 
views of the board of directors.


The Century Link FCC filing is a direct attack on our industry and 
what our, sometimes small, enterprises stand for.


The Century Link filing, in my opinion and it has been mentioned, a 
clear sign of weakness on their part and shows their dependency on 
.gov subsidies.  In this aspect is a victory for WISPA!


Yet it is slanderous document that WISPA and the individuals accused 
must refute.


As an elected member of the WISPA board of directors, I can assure 
you that the board is addressing these issues and considers this a priority.




For those who may have missed it, the petition is here:
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603

Century Telephone Enterprises, by whatever name it's using, has 
always been the worst of the worst.  My nickname for them is "The 
Devil Incarnate".  These are the folks who, facing a modem pool owned 
by a tiny carrier during the dial-up years, simply refused to pass 
calls to that carrier as "local", even though the rate center was 
local.  Utterly sleazy.


Their petition is indeed slanderous, basically claiming that WISPs 
can't offer as good a service as they can, and demanding that the FCC 
treat all WISPs like satellite providers.  This would let CenturyLink 
take Phase I CAF funding of $775/subscriber to overbuild WISPs.


To show how ridiculous this is, just turn it around.  What could you, 
as a WISP, do with a gift of $775 in capital per subscriber?  Yeah, a 
lot more than they can.  That's a lot of money to a WISP, but bupkis 
to a subsidy whore like Century.


I look forward to the Board's response, and if the Petition is open 
to Comment from others, it deserves a serious blasting.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Happy Independence Day!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 6/29/2012 09:36 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:

>
For those who may have missed it, the petition is here:
<http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603>http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603

I am sorry if I don't get this right Fred, but I don't believe this 
is the petition, rather than it is the complaint.


Is that correct?


It is their "Petition for Waiver".  It is basically a complaint, but 
since WISPs are not licensees, and the WISPs haven't actually done 
anything wrong, they cannot file a real complaint against 
them.  Instead they are petitioning to have WISPs ignored in CAF Phase I.


However, it is accompanied by a number of Exhibits which deserve 
attention too.  To see it, go to the FCC's e-filing page, then ECFS, 
and search for "CenturyLink" as the filer and "petition for waiver" 
as the type.  You'll see that this was filed in a whole bunch of Dockets.


They pulled a bunch of WISPs' coverage maps off of the NBM and 
decided that they were "implausible".  Now a few are sort of sloppy, 
basically simple radii.  CL claims that radio coverage never fits a 
perfect circle due to terrain and they are close to correct 
there.  However, some WISP maps may simply stop at 10 miles even if 
they can go farther.  They also rule any WISP implausible if its 
coverage area is more than 10 miles wide.  They simply assume that a 
WISP has exactly one tower, so any bigger coverage must be a lie!  I 
note that some of the maps look like they were generated by 
RadioMobile.  But they were fed into the state mapping entity as part 
of the NBM project. The state maps in turn tend to be normalized to 
census blocks or even larger areas.  So the map is not identical to 
the RadioMobile coverage prediction or for that matter any real 
coverage.  This is an artifact of the NBM, not the WISPs' own 
doing.  The map exaggerates CL's coverage too, the same way.  DSL 
touching a census block makes that whole block look covered.




And let me state on a side note ... your interjections in WISPA 
business, in my opinion, is extremely valued!
There have been several times that you have broken a complex problem 
down to common sense.  Thank you.


Thank you!



Victoria Proffer
<http://www.stlwimax.com/>STLWiMAX, LLC
314-720-1000

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein

Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 8:21 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Happy Independence Day!

At 6/29/2012 08:45 PM, Victoria Proffer wrote:

...
In my years in this industry, it is clear that some fail, as well as 
some become a sterling example of what I consider my industry is 
primarily made of, girt, fortitude, honesty, common sense, gumption, 
imaginativeness (check it out, it is a word =), resourcefulness ... 
oh well, you get the picture =)


With that said, I have to make my comment.
It is one as an individual and not necessarily representing the 
views of the board of directors.


The Century Link FCC filing is a direct attack on our industry and 
what our, sometimes small, enterprises stand for.


The Century Link filing, in my opinion and it has been mentioned, a 
clear sign of weakness on their part and shows their dependency on 
.gov subsidies.  In this aspect is a victory for WISPA!


Yet it is slanderous document that WISPA and the individuals accused 
must refute.


As an elected member of the WISPA board of directors, I can assure 
you that the board is addressing these issues and considers this a priority.



For those who may have missed it, the petition is here:
<http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603>http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021978603

Century Telephone Enterprises, by whatever name it's using, has 
always been the worst of the worst.  My nickname for them is "The 
Devil Incarnate".  These are the folks who, facing a modem pool 
owned by a tiny carrier during the dial-up years, simply refused to 
pass calls to that carrier as "local", even though the rate center 
was local.  Utterly sleazy.


Their petition is indeed slanderous, basically claiming that WISPs 
can't offer as good a service as they can, and demanding that the 
FCC treat all WISPs like satellite providers.  This would let 
CenturyLink take Phase I CAF funding of $775/subscriber to overbuild WISPs.


To show how ridiculous this is, just turn it around.  What could 
you, as a WISP, do with a gift of $775 in capital per 
subscriber?  Yeah, a lot more than they can.  That's a lot of money 
to a WISP, but bupkis to a subsidy whore like Century.


I look forward to the Board's response, and if the Petition is open 
to Comment from others, it deserves a serious blasting.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary 
Consulting<http://www.ionary.com/>htt

Re: [WISPA] trigger DFS for all your friends

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/29/2012 01:18 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
I couldn't see it either. I just get taken to a page with 1 album 
and 0 pics, and a spinning wheel.


The page uses Javascript to bring up the image.  I had to allow it in NoScript.

However, the three images don't seem to be scaleable, and are too 
small to see well, especially the first page, which comes across as 
text in fuzzy 2-point type.


I'm assuming it's a pic of some marginally legal device some ham had 
for sale, probably something pulled from scrap or military surplus.


It appears to be a solid-state weather radar, the type of device 
whose legitimate users are the primary users who are supposed to be 
protected by DFS.



On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Eric Williams {WISP} 
<<mailto:w...@williamsteldata.com>w...@williamsteldata.com> wrote:

Ralph the link you sent is to a add ? What is the DFS widget ?

Eric Williams {W7EMW}
Williams Tel Data / SDWISP
The man with a secure wireless plan!
8130 La Mesa Bl #700
La Mesa Ca 91942
619-698-3904 {office}


>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:49:56 -0400
> From: Ralph <<mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org>ralphli...@bsrg.org>
> Subject: [WISPA] Real World example 5.4GHz  RADAR- and YOU can own it
> To: 'WISPA General List' <<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>wireless@wispa.org>
> Message-ID: <006f01cd6d91$11c178f0$35446ad0$@org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> You come across the weirdest things at a Hamfest!
> Now you can trigger DFS for all your friends.
>
> I posted the info about it (minus the owner's info) at
>
> <http://ads22.imgur.com/all>http://ads22.imgur.com/all
>
>
> T H I S   I SN O TM I N E.
>
> I   A M   N O T  S E L L I N G   I T.
>
> I  D O   N O T  K N O W  W H O  H A S  I T  N O W
>
___
Wireless mailing list
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] trigger DFS for all your friends

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/29/2012 07:25 PM, lakeland wrote:

Military had a ton of stuff operating at 400 Hz at one time


Now that you mention it, I think many IBM mainframes also ran at 400 
Hz.  In those days before switching power supplies, a motor-generator 
set to raise the mains frequency to 400 Hz was more efficient than 
trying to generate sufficient DC power at 60 Hz.  (They needed a LOT of power.)


How much juice does this puppy use?  It says solid state; I wonder if 
the multi-kilowatt transmitter is solid state or if they needed a 
klystron or other tube final amp.


(Of course I think hams are allowed a kW on the 5.8 GHz band.  Could 
be fun in a UHF contest. ;-) )



- Reply message -
From: "Blair Davis" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: [WISPA] trigger DFS for all your friends
Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2012 6:59 pm


with a 400Hz power supply, it almost sounds like it was for airborne use...


On 7/29/2012 12:58 PM, Eric Williams {WISP} wrote:


Ralph the link you sent is to a add ? What is the DFS widget ?

Eric Williams {W7EMW}
Williams Tel Data / SDWISP
The man with a secure wireless plan!
8130 La Mesa Bl #700
La Mesa Ca 91942
619-698-3904 {office}





Message: 1
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:49:56 -0400
From: Ralph <mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org>
Subject: [WISPA] Real World example 5.4GHz  RADAR- and YOU can own it
To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
Message-ID: <006f01cd6d91$11c178f0$35446ad0$@org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

You come across the weirdest things at a Hamfest!
Now you can trigger DFS for all your friends.

I posted the info about it (minus the owner's info) at

<http://ads22.imgur.com/all>http://ads22.imgur.com/all


T H I S   I SN O TM I N E.

I   A M   N O T  S E L L I N G   I T.

I  D O   N O T  K N O W  W H O  H A S  I T  N O W



___
Wireless mailing list
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/31/2012 08:57 AM, Cliff Lebouef wrote:


Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet?

7/24/12 The Wall Street Journal


Yes, Crovitz' article got some serious reactions from the people who 
were actually there, the Internet old timers.  He began by confusing 
"Ethernet" with "Internet", perhaps because they rhyme and are both 
high-techy things, which to a finance guy like him make them 
equivalent.  Then he completely distorts the history of the ARPANET 
and how the Internet evolved from it.  He wasn't there.  I was, and I 
was at BBN in the 1970s when we were building the ARPANET for the 
government.  And I was at BBN in 1994 when they bought three of the 
previously government-sponsored NSFnet regional nets from their 
university owners and created a commercial ISP business.


Just goes to show you that when Rupert Murdoch wants to spread a lie, 
he'll spread a real whopper.



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] That Internet invention too often wrongly cited to justify big government.

[Fred Goldstein]

At 7/31/2012 09:28 AM, Brad Belton wrote:

>I think the point of the article is once big government got out of 
>the way, private interests (i.e. businesses) ran with the idea and 
>it flourished.

Yes, that was the proopaganda point he was trying to make.  But it 
was a flat-out lie when applied to the Internet.  The government 
funded the development of the Internet.  The government built and 
paid to run the Internet for years, for its own purposes.  The 
government then let more and more non-governmental users (NSFnet 
educational) onto its Internet.  All during this time, commercial 
internets (small-i) could have been built, and some were, but the 
critical mass of widespread connectivity happened when the 
government's Internet (big-I) was opened up to the general public, 
and government funding then ended.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own 
facts.  Crovitz made stuff up that was just totally wrong, two 
quadrants opposed to the truth.  He was no more accurate than 
Stalin's propagandists.

In plain fact, the key move that made any public internet possible 
was a regulatory decision made by the FCC in the mid-1970s, the 
Sharing and Resale decision.  They ordered AT&T and other LECs to 
permit private lines to be shared and resold.  Before that, a private 
line could only be run between a single customers' own sites.  A line 
to your own customer was only available to licensed common 
carriers.  A BBNer, Ralph Alter, went out and got FCC approval as the 
first packet-switched common carrier, PCI, in 1973.  Shortly 
afterwards, BBN itself started up Telenet, while Tyment and Graphnet 
also got licensed.  After the Sharing and Resale decision, becoming 
an ISP didn't require a common carrier license.  Then 1980's Computer 
II decision forced the Bells to sell "basic" services to competitors 
if they wanted to offer "enhanced" services.  The revocation of that 
in 2005 led to the NN kerfuffle and the demise of more wireline ISPs.

Jeff Broadwick adds,
>Either way, President Obama's statement that the internet was created so
>that "all companies could make money off the Internet" is patently false.

Well, no.  His statement, read in context of the full paragraph, 
clearly meant something else entirely.  His "so that" was not meant 
as "created for the express purpose of", but as its perfectly good 
alternative meaning "with the effect that".  The ARPANET was created 
*not* to survive nuclear war (it was not a Strategic network) but to 
permit researchers (at industry and universities, as well as within 
the government) to share resources.  The more decentralized but still 
subsidized Internet evolved in the 1980s.  When it was privatized by 
the Clinton administration, companies could make then money off of it.

(I note that the Romney campaign has been playing the selective 
editing trick.  President Obama was clearly and plainly talking about 
highways and schools when he said, "you didn't create that", but by 
editing out that reference and stringing other sentences together, he 
pretended that Obama told businessmen that they didn't create their 
own businesses.  You can pretty much make anyone seem to say anything 
that way, as Colbert viewers know.)

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Oh Great take from the poor and give to the rich!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 8/28/2012 04:20 PM, Jim Patient wrote:

Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative";
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01CD855A.858D9814"

<http://www.ijreview.com/2012/08/13896-fcc-may-soon-tax-internet-service/>http://www.ijreview.com/2012/08/13896-fcc-may-soon-tax-internet-service/



It's jut an idiotic screed from an idiotic extreme right-wing website 
that looks at everything through red-colored conspiracy glasses.  USF 
was created by Congress in TA96 as a way to pay for telephone service 
in rural areas, mostly in fact red states, by taxing everyone, but 
mostly from blue states.  At the time, all that officially mattered 
was POTS.  (However, any facilities that could carry POTS could be 
subsidized, including Fiber to the Ranch.  Only the actual ISP 
content was not subsidized.)  Now POTS is declining so the FCC has 
decided that something called "broadband" should be subsidized instead.


Now the right thing would have been to subsidize the 
telecommunications part of the service (basic service, "el 
broadband") and allow open access competition to use it by ISPs and 
other content providers ("la broadband").  But the Bells wanted 
vertical integration to keep off those pesky ISPs.  So the 
Cheney-Rove FCC revoked Computer II/III and took away the right of 
ISPs to use common carrier telco facilities, except dial-up.  The 
Genechowski FCC then decided that this vertically-integrated 
"broadband" was more important than dial tone and so it will get the 
subsidies.  The actual subsidy flow was capped so it, and the tax 
rate, will be lower than it would have been otherwise under the 
pre-2011 blank check USF.


So money will flow from New York, Massachusetts, California, New 
Jersey, Rhode Island, and other states that are either a) almost all 
Bell or b) low cost, and go to Mississippi, Wyoming, Alaska, Iowa, 
the Dakotas, Idaho, Puerto Rico, and Utah, to name some big 
per-capita recipient states.  This is hardly robbing the poor to give 
to the rich.  It's a direct result of the "two senators per state" 
rule and the negotiations that led to the Telecom Act, a subsidy to 
rural states.


WISPs are caught in the middle since they're the unsubsidized 
companies proving that in many places it is possible to do the job 
far more cheaply than the subsidy whores can do it.  The FCC 
recognized that with the unsubsidized competitor rule that 
CenturyLink is trying to overturn.  It's not perfect but WISPA did an 
excellent job of lobbying, certainly by the standards of the 
otherwise-does-a-great-possum-imitation ISP industry.  So it could 
have been a lot worse -- the old USF would have funded ILECs to 
compete with WISPs anyway, and did so in some locations.


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Oh Great take from the poor and give to the rich!

[Fred Goldstein]

, Inc.
Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP Community since 1993
<http://www.ask-wi.com>www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033 
<mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com>jun...@ask-wi.com






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



--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"
Serving the WISP Community since 1993
<http://www.ask-wi.com>www.ask-wi.com  760-678-5033 
<mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com>jun...@ask-wi.com







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


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5232 - Release Date: 08/29/12



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration



Mikrotik Advanced Certified

<http://www.nwwnet.net>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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 <>___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti next product.... another router?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 9/14/2012 11:38 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>They are focusing on their core product (wireless).  The team there has
>not been taken to any other projects.  Rather, the income from the
>wireless has generated enough profits that they can hire NEW teams in
>order to be able to expand their product lines.
>
>And why not?  A router is a perfect fit.  So now we have:
>
>* Wireless Equipment
>* Switch that can power equipment
>* Router
>* Hotspot equipment
>* Hi-Cap Backhaul
>
>Really, Ubiquiti is staged to clean-up the WISP market.  They are a
>one-stop shop.  They make equipment and make equipment that works well.

Another way to say it:  This is war, MikroTik is their enemy, and 
they've taken the gloves off!

For a while there was detente between Califonia and Latvia.  MikroTik 
owned the router space, while Ubiquiti owned the packaged radio and 
antenna space.  Sure there was some overlap, but hybrid integrations 
like UbTik were natural.

Then MikroTik underpriced UBNT with its SXT radios.  So now UBNT is 
fighting back big time.  The winner, of course, is the 
customer.  More bang, fewer bucks.

MikroTik, of course, has not finished playing its cards.  CCR is 
going to be interesting, basd on the 36-core Tilera processor.  If 
they can keep RouterOS stable on that, then it will move into new markets.

I am not concerned about the limits of software-based routing.  If I 
were Cisco, I'd be worried!  New processors have a lot of speed and 
I/O capability. There are some high end applications where hardware 
acceleration is needed, but that's a narrow, if lucrative, 
market.  As far as features are concerned, Linux has a pretty good 
set of capabilities already, and keeps accreting more into its GPL 
ecosystem.  The proprietary stuff is the polish, like the UI.

I am not happy, for instance, with how RouterOS supports MEF Carrier 
Ethernet.  I don't think they've heard of it yet.  The raw pieces are 
probably there but assembling it onto an interface is a real 
puzzle.  Nor does it seem to be on UBNT's radar, though it's a huge 
market. Maybe they've noticed how cheap those switches are and just 
don't want to compete in that space.

But it's not as if EdgeOS is being written from scratch.  Nor were 
AirOS or RouterOS.  They're all swimming in a GPL pool.  The trick is 
to integrate it and match it to the hardware.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] which one is better for short links?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 9/23/2012 06:17 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I have noticed that lately many collegues are using Ubiquiti Nanobridge
>M5 (the one with small parabolic dish) and the product is nice for the
>signal (more or less).
>
>Unfortunately, I do not see in the *same price range*, the same product
>from Mikrotik. The only thing that I see is "SEXTANT 5HnD" which is
>declared to be 18dBi (much less that the 23dBi DECLARED by Ubiquiti)

Antenna gain is almost entirely a function of size; with a dish, it's 
pretty straightforward.  The NM5 has 326 and 400 mm dish versions, 
for 22 and 25 dB nominal gain.  The Sextant is 250 mm; the SXT is 140 
mm.  Smaller dishes means less directivity and lower gain, but also 
less wind load and visibility.  Neither one is "better" in that 
regard; they're just different.  And they tend to price out a bit 
better than buying a radio and dish separately, but not by much.

>What I do not like of Ubiquiti is that compared to mikrotik it has much
>less features, for example no mac-ping/mac-telnet or multiple SSID (ok
>you can have multiple SSID if you use the CLI and the linux command line
>and maybe it will be implemented in the future)
>
>Therefore, I really wonder if those 18 vs 23 are real or just what you
>think from your field experience.

Those features are just software and have nothing to do with the gain 
of the antenna.  It's like comparing horsepower of a car's engine 
with the comfort of the seats.  Personally I don't think the radio 
unit itself should do more than pass along Ethernet frames 
transparently, and respond to management, but since everybody's 
working from a Linux kernel and that already has lots of other 
capabilities, people expect their radios to also be routers.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/11/2012 06:52 PM, SamT wrote:
Not sure I under stand the no-NAT, so every device on the other side 
of the CPE has it's own public IP?


There could be one NAT, at the access point.

My taste, which to be sure I haven't tested at scale in a wireless 
network (but plan to), is to follow what is becoming standard 
wireline practice and do switching, not bridging, at "layer 
2".  Routing would then be lumped into one place, making it easier to manage.


The problem with small Linux-based systems (this includes both UBNT 
and MT) is that they don't tend to have switching documented or set 
up in the UI, even if it's possible.  Bridging is bad -- it was 
designed for orange hose Ethernet, and it passes broadcast traffic to 
everyone.  We invented this at DEC in the 1980s and discovered how it 
doesn't scale too well -- we had a couple of thousand DECnet and IP 
nodes on a bridged LAN, and the background broadcast traffic level 
was 400 kbps.  This was a lot for systems to handle in 1991.  I was 
testing ISDN bridges and "discovered" how you can't just bridge that 
type of network across a 56k connection.  (I discovered the traffic 
when I first turned up the bridge.  I ended up isolating it behind a 
router, built from an old VAX.  At DEC, we built everything ouf of VAXen.)


Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier 
Ethernet is the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to 
identify the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed 
along.  Since it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS 
assigned.  I think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, 
route on tags and set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do 
it all.  Switching doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more 
isolation and privacy than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at 
that layer, transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.




On 10/11/2012 4:53 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
We run MT, not UBNT, CPE, but it doesn't matter what brand it 
is.  We run them in as routers, but do not NAT.  Same benefits 
others mentioned for routing, just one fewer NAT.  Never have a 
problem with it this way and can't see any good reason to NAT there.


On 10/11/2012 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens wrote:
We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and assign a ip 
address to the customers router.

He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a router.
Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears 
customers would be double natted when they hook up their routers?

Or does it not matter from the customer experience?

Thanks

--
Arthur Stephens
Senior Sales Technician
Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
For technical support visit 
<http://www.ptera.net/support>http://www.ptera.net/support


-
"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
<mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5802 - Release Date: 10/01/12
Internal Virus Database is out of date.



--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration



Mikrotik Advanced Certified

<http://www.nwwnet.net>www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060
(765) 439-4253
(855) 231-6239


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


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


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>Could you expand a bit on this?  It sounds like you're describing what
>I'd refer to as "virtual circuits" rather than "switching." Are you
>setting up per-customer VLANs or something like that?

It helps if you think of it as "Ethernet-framed Frame Relay", rather 
than as Ethernet that hoary old LAN.  So it's virtual circuit 
switching (the two terms are complementary, not contradictory).  Each 
link between a pair of routers is a VLAN, which is a two-point 
virtual circuit.  The term "VLAN" is a bit inappropriate nowadays, 
and the 12-bit size of the tag is inadequate for large networks, but 
that's what we get when recycling a mass-produced 
product.  (Apparently AT&T ran out of tags on some of their 
switches.)  The tag btw is solved by "Q-in-Q" nesting of tags, though 
most of the time it's a subscriber tag nested inside a provider tag.

There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP 
vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This 
would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a 
building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a 
separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School 
Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate 
VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from 
each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a 
Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are 
multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and 
firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a 
Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of 
course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a 
shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.

I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly 
instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs 
and queues.

>TD
>
>On 10/11/2012 06:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > Switching, though, is what Frame Relay and ATM do, and now Carrier
> > Ethernet is the big thing for fiber.  It uses the VLAN tag to identify
> > the virtual circuit; the MAC addresses are just passed along.  Since
> > it's connection-oriented (via the tag), it can have QoS assigned.  I
> > think it's theoretically possible to tag user ports, route on tags and
> > set QoS on RouterOS, but it's not obvious how to do it all.  Switching
> > doesn't pass broadcast traffic; it provides more isolation and privacy
> > than plain routing.  Mesh routing then works at that layer,
> > transparent to IP.  It'll be "interesting" to set up.
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> > vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> > would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> > building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> > separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> > Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> > VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> > each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
> > Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
> > multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
> > firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
> > Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
> > course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
> > shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
> >
> > I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
> > instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
> > and queues.
>
>So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
>network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
>".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
>figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.

Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put 
those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched 
Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and 
Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is 
"an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform 
to the documentation, not the other way around.

>It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
>switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
>box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
>other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
>network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
>has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
>At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
>built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
>job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
>RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
>switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
>something to get it.

Find me an MEF switch for only 200% of the price of an equivalent 
Routerboard! (I suppose the new UBNT EdgeMAX will also fit that 
test.)  Most of the <$1000 Ethernet switches are pure LAN bridges, 
not MEF 9/14.  They use the same frame format but utterly different 
semantics.  Plus a RouterOS box might allow a mix of the two, routing 
in one network and switching for everyone.

>There is very little that you can't do with RouterOS in terms of vlan
>behaviors, but there certainly ARE a few limitations.  Your needs will
>determine which is better.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/12/2012 07:06 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>Being a Technical person, and a visual learner.. I am having trouble
>translating what Fred is trying to do with a Mikrotik, which he thinks
>it cannot do.

Actually, I said that I don't know how to do it, not that it can or 
cannot be done.  It may be a documentation problem, that they never 
wrote down how to do it.

>We build our Fixed wireless pop's with a Mikrotik Router doing the
>Routing Functions at each pop.
>Each of the Sectors are connected on their own port.
>AP's and CPE's are setup as WDS Bridges.
>
>This allows us to create a routed network. (clients on each AP are
>bridged) 
>
>But, if we wanted to, we could also do Vlan's across this type of setup,
>just as easily, especially now since UBNT firmware fully supports vlans...
>
>What am I missing ?

If you're doing routing, how do you also do VLANs?

The VLAN is at a layer below IP, and (this is a key requirement) the 
IP layer must be totally invisible to the box (RouterOS, EdgeOS, 
etc.), and it might not even be an IP packet inside that VLAN.  If it 
is still IP, the address space belongs to the client, not the ISP.

The Ethernet layer may require some kind of route-determination 
protocol.  Since it's not a real LAN, STP doesn't really hack it; 
perhaps (in RouterOS) HWMP+ can do it.  This protocol varies among CE 
switches.  If it's an edge (CPE) switch, though, it doesn't need to 
participate in route-determination.


>On 10/12/2012 6:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > At 10/12/2012 05:48 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 10:52 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >>> There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> >>> vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> >>> would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> >>> building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> >>> separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> >>> Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> >>> VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> >>> each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
> >>> Routerboard is cheaper yet!  And it can't route since there are
> >>> multiple independent networks there, each with its own routers and
> >>> firewalls.  Nor is bridging appropriate (not isolating).  So a
> >>> Carrier Ethernet (MEF) switching option would fill that bill.  Of
> >>> course the same software would work with a wireless feed to a
> >>> shared-tenant building, not needing the SFP version.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect the pieces are all there, just not the assembly
> >>> instructions or tools to facilitate it.  It involves setting up VLANs
> >>> and queues.
> >> So, what you're saying is that you don't understand HOW to make the
> >> network using MT as a tool?  NOTE: This is not the same as "It can't do
> >> ".  It's all in the documentation.  You just have to either
> >> figure it out from what is there or ask for help from someone who has.
> > Yes, that's what I'm thinking.  They never documented how to put
> > those pieces together, though they might work.  And "Switched
> > Ethernet" would be a lovely tab on the side of Winbox and
> > Webfig.  I'm from the old school, where the definition of "bug" is
> > "an undocumented feature", and where software was written to conform
> > to the documentation, not the other way around.
> >
> >> It is there and can be done in a number of different ways (bridged OR
> >> switched).  Truth be told, I am amazed at what can be done in a small
> >> box like the mikrotik devices.  It is a swiss army knife.  However, the
> >> other side of this coin is that often, there is a BETTER tool for some
> >> network needs.  Much like a swiss army knife, while it is true that it
> >> has a screwdriver built in, a REAL screwdriver is usually better suited.
> >> At the same time, often, you only need the functionality provided by the
> >> built-in screwdriver, but it takes a special knack to make it do the
> >> job.  The point being, that while it is certainly possible to make
> >> RouterOS NOT be a router, why would you?  If you want a switch, put in a
> >> switch.  If you want to save money, just realize that you are trading
> >> something to get it.
> > Find me an MEF switch for

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

Mike Hammett duly noted,

Fred, I don't think most of the people here understand what YOU'RE 
talking about. They think a switch is just a switch and they're all 
the same, but that's far from the truth.



Probably true, which is why I'd like to clarify it.  Vendors who sell 
primarily to ISPs or one-company IP networks don't realize how big 
the "enterprise network" market is, now largely moving to Carrier 
Ethernet as a cheaper substitute for leased lines, which are 
grotesquely overpriced in much of the US (if you're not in a major 
data center).  And there is opportunity for wireless here too, though 
nowadays it's mostly done via dedicated point-to-point radios, not 
shared networks.


At 10/12/2012 10:10 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
What is being described is the default behavior of any standard 
managed switch.  There is no "virtual circuit" being built and it 
still "broadcasts" across said VLAN.  They are simply only allowing 
the VLAN to go from point A to point B.  This though can be done at 
wire speed in the hardware of any switch and MT.


I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  It is allowing only 
the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and 
the VLAN is invisible to everyone else.  Which is really virtual 
circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID.


In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone 
else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside.  What 
goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to that 
port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users.  So 
it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD.  This is 
different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere.  One type of 
MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with >2 ports and 
broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL would not 
know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they just pass the 
MAC addresses transparently.


This is not an intelligent method (the switching system not the 
people talking about this), as there can only be STP or other 
non-standard protocols to handle fail over.  The example is that if 
you have 5 switches in-line, you are simply ONLY allowing say 
vlan999 to tag ingress on port 22 on switch 1, then only flow though 
tagged on the trunk ports between switches, then finally only having 
one egress non-tagged port at switch 5 port 22..  Hence a sort of "circuit"..


Almost everything, including the RB951-2n, supports RSTP as well as 
STP, but yes beyond that the intelligence is non-standard.  Cisco, 
for instance, has a fairly elaborate routing (in the literal sense, 
not IP) protocol for optimizing every path.  Of course you don't see 
many multi-vendor CE networks... the edges can be different though.


This works great on large bandwidth wired applications, but going 
over anything wireless for the most part poses an issue.  The 
"trunks" are still seeing all broadcast traffic from all devices, 
maybe its not going as far and yes you can control it a bit more, 
but in the end, a packet storm on one VLAN will take down the 
wireless connection and all trunks on a backhaul radio.


The idea is that there are no broadcast packets.  You configure 
devices that use the network to think of it as point-to-point 
circuits.  Broadcasts only go to the opposite end of that EPL 
(2-point) or EVPL (point-to-multipoint).  I'm ignoring the EP-LAN 
case since that's not relevant here.


Also, traffic levels on each EPL (VLAN) are limited by the 
three-color traffic classifier (CIR+EIR).  So you cap each user at 
the ingress, and optionally assign a CIR to a smaller amount, for 
applications like VoIP.  However, typical unlicensed radio links 
aren't as predictable as fiber so the commitment isn't the same.


 Simply because the UBNT or whatever radio you are using can't 
handle 100,000 pps.  The switches, in hardware, can handle 
millions, making this situation not a major issue as we have plenty 
of hardware to handle those instances and with several mitigation 
systems built into these switches, you can further handle said 
traffic.  Not saying this method does not work, simply has its own 
"gotchas" just like anything else.


I wonder if that hardware handles the VLANs with the QoS (CIR/CBS, 
EIR/EBS) features.  Otherwise it could still be done in software, but 
not at the same speed.  I'd still expect, for example, an LTI box to 
be able to do it fast enough to keep up with a Ubiquiti 5GHz 
radio.  (AirFiber might be a bit trickier.)


The limitations is really in the fail over  it don't care what kind 
of packets or even if the packets are "needed" to traverse the 
network, hence more traffic than needed, but its better than one 
large bridge.  Building rings that have "disabled" ports

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/13/2012 11:27 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
>Hi Fred,
>
>I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're
>using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex
>Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios.  Standard VLANs break up broadcast domains,
>but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total isolation - this
>is one of the reasons I initially asked what you were describing.
>Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently than
>standard packet switched ethernet "dot1q" VLANs in that regard.  I'd
>reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart enough to
>keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up.

Yep, the terminology is confusing.  I'm talking about Metro-E (a/k/a 
Carrier Ethernet), which is "switching" and uses the "VLAN" tag, but 
sure isn't LAN switching.  The confusion is that the original 1980s 
Orange Hose Ethernet was a broadcast-topology LAN, and the original 
bridges were designed to be transparent.  So by the 1990s orange hose 
was gone, and all Ethernet was switched, but it was switched using 
the bridge construct.  And this still works fine for LANs and the 
home application.  They don't need isolation.

I see a lot of confusion between these two worlds in the wireline/IT 
world too.  Data centers use big managed "switches" that are still 
LAN-model, or use VLANs with limited isolation.  They rarely deal 
with QoS.  But when you hit the WAN space, the Carrier Ethernet 
construct makes more sense, generally to provide a 2-point pipe 
between routers, or a fan-in. The ILECs are selling these things like 
crazy.  What's frustrating is that there are differences between each 
carriers' offerings; they don't have an easy apples-to-apples 
comparison.  Some of this is policy (do they want to sell CIR and EIR 
separately?) and some of this is hardware limitations (VZ-Core's 
Fujitsu 4500s can't do EVPL, so they map EPLs onto SONET VCGs).

The Metro Ethernet Forum wrote its standards using constructs adapted 
from earlier switches, based of course on what vendors were 
building.  So the VLAN tag is used as the VCI, even though it's too 
small.  And a lot of switches can do both the CE and LAN application, 
depending on how they're configured.  (Extreme comes to mind.)  Throw 
in the term "layer 3 switching" and you realize that we're a bit 
short of unique nouns in our vocabulary!

>Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are
>trying to figure out what I'm talking about.
>
>I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent metro-e
>roll-out with ubnt and mt.  In the WISP world, I'd expect single-tagged
>dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer traffic, even in
>large-ish MPOP scenarios.  How many POPs generally hang off a single
>network segment before hitting a router?

I would not expect a large-scale Metro-E/Carrier-E network to be 
built using MT or UBNT in the middle.  But a WISP or small ISP might 
want to provide some "isolated" Ethernet pipes between a customers' 
locations -- think of schools in a district, for instance, or some 
other operation that has internal networking, uses its own private 
address space, and wants to maintain one firewall, hanging other 
sites behind it.  That's one application.  Another is the CPE: The 
RB2011 with the SFP slot looks like a potential CPE for a building 
that has one fiber drop feeding multiple networks.  The application 
that comes to mind is a state office building with offices for motor 
vehicles, social services, and taxation in it -- each has its own 
isolated network, but why not share fiber?  Ciena-class boxes are 
typically used for that, at a much higher price.  (I ran into this 
while doing a procurement cycle for a state network.)

One other way to look at the difference:  The usual ISP view is that 
there is one global public IP address space, and NAT is the exception 
used at the customer location.  The enterprise-IT view is that 
everybody has their own private IP network, and the public Internet 
is that dangerous space on the other side of a firewall.  Where you 
stand on that influences the design of the network and switches.

>Thanks for the interesting discussion!

I've enjoyed it.  I still hope somebody at some point figures out 
just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or 
AirOS.  Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now.  (They're all Linux under the skin, 
after all.)

>TD
>
>On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  It is allowing only
> > the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B, and the
> > VLAN is invisible to everyone else.  Which is

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

You're all a bunch of young whippersnappers with all that newfangled gear.

At 10/13/2012 12:34 PM, you wrote:
>Lol... startac is my phone, newton is my ipad
>
>Gino A. Villarini
>g...@aeronetpr.com
>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>787.273.4143
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists
>Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 12:28 PM
>To: fai...@snappydsl.net; WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers
>
>I do...it used to say his Motorola Startac...
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Oct 13, 2012, at 12:12 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:
>
> >  ...now for  a little bit  of a distraction...
> >
> >>>>>>>> Sent from a Apple Newton
> >
> > Every time I see the above  tag line on Gino's email... I cannot 
> help but crack a smile...
> >
> > now how many folks know what an Apple Newton was ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 10/13/2012 11:33 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> >> It can be done with Mk and Canopy, both support qinq
> >>
> >> Sent from a Apple Newton
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 13, 2012, at 11:29 AM, "Tim Densmore" 
>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Fred,
> >>>
> >>> I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the fact that you're
> >>> using generic terms like "switching" and "VLAN" to describe complex
> >>> Metro-E/Carrier-E scenarios.  Standard VLANs break up broadcast
> >>> domains, but they don't create virtual circuits or provide total
> >>> isolation - this is one of the reasons I initially asked what 
> you were describing.
> >>> Metro-e q-in-q with stag/ctag UNIs and EVCs behave much differently
> >>> than standard packet switched ethernet "dot1q" VLANs in that regard.
> >>> I'd reference the different metro-e IEEE standards if I were smart
> >>> enough to keep them all in my head or unlazy enough to look them up.
> >>>
> >>> Tons of info available at metroethernetforum.org for folks who are
> >>> trying to figure out what I'm talking about.
> >>>
> >>> I'd be extremely impressed to learn that you could do a decent
> >>> metro-e roll-out with ubnt and mt.  In the WISP world, I'd expect
> >>> single-tagged dot1q VLANs to be enough to differentiate customer
> >>> traffic, even in large-ish MPOP scenarios.  How many POPs generally
> >>> hang off a single network segment before hitting a router?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the interesting discussion!
> >>>
> >>> TD
> >>>
> >>> On 10/12/2012 10:14 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> >>>> I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing.  It is allowing
> >>>> only the VLAN to go from A to B, while nothing else goes to A or B,
> >>>> and the VLAN is invisible to everyone else.  Which is really
> >>>> virtual circuit behavior; VLAN is the legacy name of the VC ID.
> >>>>
> >>>> In CE switching, then, the VLAN receives no broadcasts from anyone
> >>>> else on the switch or network, and sends no broadcasts outside.
> >>>> What goes onto that mapped port, or onto a VLAN pre-tagged to go to
> >>>> that port, is totally and completely invisible to all other users.
> >>>> So it's secure enough for public safety use on a shared PMD.  This
> >>>> is different from a bridge, where broadcasts go everywhere.  One
> >>>> type of MEF service (EP-LAN) does actually emulate a LAN with >2
> >>>> ports and broadcasts among them, but the more common EPL and EVPL
> >>>> would not know a broadcast frame from anything else, since they
> >>>> just pass the MAC addresses transparently.

Sent from my PDP-11
via DECWRL Mail-11 to TCP/IP gateway

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

Butch, thanks for that information!  I've marked that message 
priority "high" so I don't lose it in my mailing list archive.

I do get your point, that RouterOS was optimized for routing; there's 
just nothing else that fits its price points and form factors 
(especially outdoor Routerboards), so even if it's a little 
inefficient, it may still be cost-effective for some traffic 
levels.  The discussion began with questions about multiple NATs and 
routing within a network; I'd expect the VLAN configurations to get 
at least as much throughput as full-scale routing.  It won't compete 
with Ciena but their boxes don't cost $100 and run on 6 watts.

At 10/13/2012 03:58 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
>On Sat, 2012-10-13 at 12:30 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > I've enjoyed it.  I still hope somebody at some point figures out
> > just how close you can get to an MEF-type switch using RouterOS or
> > AirOS.  Or EdgeOS, Real Soon Now.  (They're all Linux under the skin,
> > after all.)
>
>It can be done (sort of) in Linux.  Which, of course, RouterOS has at
>it's core.  The problem, though, is that Mikrotik's software is called
>RotuerOS for a reason.  These devices are built to be routers.  While
>what you are talking about is (at some levels) a hybrid of routing (at
>layer 2) and switching.  I realize that is an oversimplification, but
>bear with me.  RouterOS is certainly capable of doing much of what you
>want, but it is not intended to behave as a switch. It will, however,
>have to do it in software, which IS bridging.  You can, for example,
>create the following configurations:
>
>Ether1 - "trunk" port for vlans 10,20,30
>Ether2 - Untagged traffic for vlan10
>Ether3 - Tagged for vlan20
>vlan30 is for managment of the device
>
>The vlans would be configured as:
>vlan 10 - created on ether1 only (E1V10)
>vlan 20 - created on ether1 (E1V20) and ether3 (E3V20)
>vlan 30 - created on ether1 only (E1V30)
>
>Now for the software "routing" configuration.
>You need a bridge device that includes the following:
>bvlan10 - includes E1V10 and ether2
>bvlan20 - includes E1V20 and E3V20
>bvlan30 - (management) includes E1V30 only
>
>This configuration, while it uses bridges to "tie" the ports together,
>would not send broadcast traffic between bridges.  Even on the trunk
>port side (ether1).
>
>IP addressing would be on the bridge devices (if you want them to be
>visible at layer 3).  Obviously, bvlan30 would need an address.
>Strictly speaking, you could simply eliminate the bridge for vlan30 and
>add the layer 3 stuff at E1V30, but personally, I like the consistent
>behavior of allowing the bridges to be the communication interface.
>
>Because RouterOS is designed to be a router and not a switch, the
>ability to create a port that handles both tagged and untagged traffic
>becomes rather ugly.  It can be done, but it is a horribly ugly
>configuration and it uses bridges.  This, of course, depends somewhat on
>exactly what you are trying to accomplish.
>
>Because of the limitations of the backend software and the design
>purpose of that software, RouterOS would work fine at certain places in
>a CE network, but it certainly doesn't fit at the core.  The same is
>true of other routers.
>

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
>* Fred Goldstein  wrote:
> > At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
> > There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> > vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> > would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> > building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> > separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> > Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> > VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> > each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
>
>I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS
>and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP).
>
>The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the
>world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and
>occasionally OSPF between CE and PE).
>
>Unless I'm missing something...

You're missing something.

I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet.  It's a protocol. 
MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely 
competes with CE.  I know RouterOS supports MPLS.  But CE is different.

Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than 
MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general, 
IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along 
with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit 
basis.  MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative 
priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies.

At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class 
products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you 
don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation).

Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/18/2012 02:52 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
MPLS does run over a IP backbone, but can use VPLS tunnels to create 
what you are doing at layer 2.  Not to mention you would get all of 
the benefit of Traffic Engineering, and internal routing giving you 
the best of both worlds.  Why its sometimes called Layer 2.5, as it 
creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you fail over and 
multiple paths.  With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :)


With some implementations of MPLS (TE required) and a whole lot of 
fiddling, you can build an MPLS network that does pretty much what 
Carrier Ethernet does, given enough skilled labor to keep it 
running.  But Carrier Ethernet is a big new market, selling like 
crazy, and there are thus a lot of CE networks out there.  (Cable 
companies and ILECs are both competing for it.)


Also, when you leave the "ISP" world and deal with the big-money "IT" 
custoemrs, they have their own MPLS networks, and need something to 
run them over.  CE makes a good substrate for MPLS.  Carrier MPLS 
does not carry customer MPLS as naturally.  In fact I think it would 
be fairly hard to configure that.  I know of some real users facing 
that, where a local fiber network went in using MPLS as its basic 
service, thinking that a government with its own MPLS would be able 
to use it, when they're different MPLS domains.  CE would be so much 
cleaner.  Unlike RINA, where there's never a conflict about recursing 
a layer, TCP/IP protocols tend to be written with brittle interfaces 
to others that are expected to be above and below them.


So while you can argue the merits of MPLS vs. CE for a brand-new 
metro network, if you are looking for CPE to go onto an existing 
network, you don't put an MPLS box on a CE network, or 
vice-versa!  I'm looking at a (different) real CE network going up 
now where there's an open question of what CPE to use.  I see a 
market opening for a Routerboard-priced SFP box.  But it doesn't 
matter if it costs $39, runs at 10 Gbps, washes windows and makes 
tea, if it doesn't mate with the network and its services.


On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Fred Goldstein 
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote:

At 10/17/2012 02:26 AM, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
>* Fred Goldstein 
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote:

> > At 10/12/2012 10:23 AM, Tim Densmore wrote:
> > There's a real market gap not quite being filled by our usual WISP
> > vendors MT and UBNT.  MT has a new CPE router with SFP support.  This
> > would be great for a regional CE fiber network.  Let's say you have a
> > building (say, Town Hall) with multiple tenants in it, each with a
> > separate IP network (say, Town administration, Police, and School
> > Admin).  You'd want to be able to drop off one fiber with separate
> > VLANs (virtual circuits) for each network, isolating the traffic from
> > each other.  An MEF switch is cheaper than a real Cisco router but a
>
>I can't speak to Ubiquiti but Mikrotik RouterOS certainly supports MPLS
>and VPLS (and LDP and OSPF and BGP).
>
>The design you describe is exactly what the majority of the
>world is using MPLS VPNs for -- utilizing, of course, LDP and BGP (and
>occasionally OSPF between CE and PE).
>
>Unless I'm missing something...

You're missing something.

I was specifically asking about Carrier Ethernet.  It's a protocol.
MPLS is a different protocol which, in the marketplace, largely
competes with CE.  I know RouterOS supports MPLS.  But CE is different.

Disregarding that CE is much more multi-protocol in support than
MultiProtocol Label Switching, whose multi protocols are, in general,
IP and IP, CE semantics include explicit CIR and EIR support, along
with CBS and EBS (burst size) specification, on a per-virtual-circuit
basis.  MPLS does not have CIR semantics; it just assigns relative
priorities, and is thus fiddly when offered traffic varies.

At large volumes (once you get past RouterOS into carrier-class
products), CE is generally cheaper per bit than MPLS, at least if you
don't buy Cisco, which pretty much owns MPLS (it's their creation).

Hamburgers are not chicken, even if both are often served for lunch.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" <http://ionary.com>ionary.com
  ionary 
Consulting  <http://www.ionary.com/>http://www.ionary.com/

  +1 617 795 2701

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




--

Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Author of 
"<http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm>Learn 
RouterOS- Second Edition"
 Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP S

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/19/2012 12:40 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:


Maybe I should take this off-list but this would be a better 
question.  What RFC or industry standard features are you referring 
?  Specific items!  :)


It's not in RFCs; RFCs are the IETF vehicle, which is really all 
about TCP/IP.  Carrier Ethernet is not theirs.  It's standardized by 
the Metro Ethernet Forum, so the standards have MEF numbers.  MEF in 
turn largely cites IEEE specs from the 802 family, but assembles 
them, with its own touches, into its own packages.



inline comments

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Fred Goldstein 
<<mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>fgoldst...@ionary.com> wrote:

At 10/18/2012 02:52 PM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
MPLS does run over a IP backbone, but can use VPLS tunnels to 
create what you are doing at layer 2.  Not to mention you would get 
all of the benefit of Traffic Engineering, and internal routing 
giving you the best of both worlds.  Why its sometimes called Layer 
2.5, as it creates tunnels inside your routed network, giving you 
fail over and multiple paths.  With TE you can also reserve bandwidth etc. :)


With some implementations of MPLS (TE required) and a whole lot of 
fiddling, you can build an MPLS network that does pretty much what 
Carrier Ethernet does, given enough skilled labor to keep it 
running.  But Carrier Ethernet is a big new market, selling like 
crazy, and there are thus a lot of CE networks out there.  (Cable 
companies and ILECs are both competing for it.)



Also, when you leave the "ISP" world and deal with the big-money 
"IT" custoemrs, they have their own MPLS networks, and need 
something to run them over.  CE makes a good substrate for 
MPLS.  Carrier MPLS does not carry customer MPLS as naturally.  In 
fact I think it would be fairly hard to configure that.  I know of 
some real users facing that, where a local fiber network went in 
using MPLS as its basic service, thinking that a government with its 
own MPLS would be able to use it, when they're different MPLS 
domains.  CE would be so much cleaner.  Unlike RINA, where there's 
never a conflict about recursing a layer, TCP/IP protocols tend to 
be written with brittle interfaces to others that are expected to be 
above and below them.


You can run MPLS tags inside a VPLS circuit.  You would simply build 
a VPLS circuit on top of your MPLS network, the MPLS network is 
really the transport, the VPLS is your private layer2 network (or if 
you got VRF or BGP VPLS, you can run in layer3). Thus giving you the 
ability to run another MPLS network over your existing MPLS 
network.  I am not disagreeing that CE could be cleaner, but I am 
not versed in all operations of CE, so its like comparing 
apples/oranges.The example that you used though was VLANs though.


Yes, you can go through some hoops to stack things, when that's 
supported.  (I'm not sure everyone who uses single-company MPLS would 
know how to do all of that though.)  The most extreme case of 
unexpected recursion is VoIP, of course, where an entire stack's 
application payload is in turn potentially just a layer 1 telephone 
call pipe.  Which, if good enough, might support a modem and another 
stack... (just kidding).


But CE does it all a lot more easily and cheaply, if you're trying to 
light a fiber network.  The customer can just plug the routers (with 
or without MPLS) in to the network (which can do its own tagging) and 
the EPL is just a point-to-point link. This btw is essentially the 
old "TLS" renamed.


Yeah, I'd like Ethernet ports on RouterOS boxes to be that easy to 
use. I think I know how bridges could be set up between them with a 
network in between.  I just don't know RouterOS well enough yet.



So while you can argue the merits of MPLS vs. CE for a brand-new 
metro network, if you are looking for CPE to go onto an existing 
network, you don't put an MPLS box on a CE network, or 
vice-versa!  I'm looking at a (different) real CE network going up 
now where there's an open question of what CPE to use.  I see a 
market opening for a Routerboard-priced SFP box.  But it doesn't 
matter if it costs $39, runs at 10 Gbps, washes windows and makes 
tea, if it doesn't mate with the network and its services.



I just posted another question then, what features with CE 
specifically are you looking for in this box?


Basically what's summed up in the MEF specs, and then I think the EPL 
(ptp) and EVPL (ptmp) options are more important than the LAN 
emulator option. I then want

- tagging (of untagged traffic coming into an EVPL)
- QinQ (carrying tagged traffic)
- CIR and EIR support
- Easy port configuration
- Some OA&M capability

Note that in these two services, MAC address is basically treated as 
payload. No traditional bridging takes place.  The "VLAN" tag is 
really a virtual circuit ID, but for some reason a lot of

Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/27/2012 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>IPv6-only networks aren't far out in ARIN land. Well, unless you 
>like paying out of the nose for third party blocks. I'd say less 
>than 5 years before you cannot obtain an IPv4 address in North 
>America. Complete European and Asian access will require IPv6 soon 
>as they're out of IPv4 already.
>

I don't want to get into a flame war here, but suffice to say that 
there is an opposing opinion.  IPv6 is five years away from mass 
adoption, but this statement is always true.

IPv4 addresses will be used more efficiently.  They will be 
resold.  There will be more NAT (which only breaks broken 
applications).  So they will always be available.  What has ended is 
the "homestead act" era of IPv4.  Homesteads were free land given to 
farmers.  When they ran out, farming didn't stop; the land could be 
resold.  Same with IPv4.  When it was a free resource, people squandered it.

I'm still looking to see how to totally turn off IPv6 in RouterOS, as 
its being on by default scares me.  It's essentially a giant back 
door used primarily by hackers.


>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Scott Carullo" 
>To: wireless@wispa.org
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:18:35 AM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?
>
>
>I'm fairly sure you can change the binding order to adjust this 
>operation to suite your preference. (which one the computer tried first)
>
>I don't see IPv6 utilized in my real world until 5-10 years from 
>now. We do provide some customers v6 routed address space and our 
>entire network is routed and supports it, but thats because people 
>like to play with it because its something new in the networking 
>world they want to understand, not because anyone actually requires 
>it. It does provide a small marketing bonus, for those that don't 
>understand it - sounds good any way lol
>
>I see it as somewhat as a liability to my network, since there are 
>sure to be bugs in its implementation and dual stack functionality. 
>Just a fear I have, been there done that with different routing 
>protocols in the past and the programmers have not yet achieved 
>perfection yet :)
>
>But, I flex, have to let people have their v6 fun (employees and 
>customers alike...)
>
>
>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

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/27/2012 10:44 PM, MikeH wrote:
>Wait, am I disagreeing with Fred? :-p

Yep. ;-)  Of course I don't mind disagreeing with the crowd.  I'm 
curmudgeonly enough.

Anyway, rather than discuss it here on the list, I'll just give a 
couple of file pointers.

An article I wrote seven years ago but is still somewhat current 
(since IPv6 is always five years away ;-) ):
IPv6:  More Filling, Less Taste http://www.ionary.com/ion-ipv6.html

And a more general slide presentation on the topic of naming and 
addressing by John Day from 2010, which points out why IPv6 is 
answering the wrong question and solving a non-problem while the 
actual problems are ignored:

http://www.pouzinsociety.org/images/KoreaNamingFund100218.pdf

Enjoy.

>True, there are companies holding onto IPv4 space they aren't using 
>that they will sell, but the price of those will quickly escalate 
>for people with more money than ambition to implement IPv6.
>
>Asia may not be important to most Americans, but with RIPE running 
>out of IPv4 blocks as well (and likely far fewer legacy block 
>holders), there will be connectivity issues going to European organizations.
>
>Doing IPv6 really isn't that difficult to do and I hope to have 
>everything of mine (including hosted services) dual stacked by the 
>next IPv6 Day.
>
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 9:35:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?
>
>At 10/27/2012 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >IPv6-only networks aren't far out in ARIN land. Well, unless you
> >like paying out of the nose for third party blocks. I'd say less
> >than 5 years before you cannot obtain an IPv4 address in North
> >America. Complete European and Asian access will require IPv6 soon
> >as they're out of IPv4 already.
> >
>
>I don't want to get into a flame war here, but suffice to say that
>there is an opposing opinion.  IPv6 is five years away from mass
>adoption, but this statement is always true.
>
>IPv4 addresses will be used more efficiently.  They will be
>resold.  There will be more NAT (which only breaks broken
>applications).  So they will always be available.  What has ended is
>the "homestead act" era of IPv4.  Homesteads were free land given to
>farmers.  When they ran out, farming didn't stop; the land could be
>resold.  Same with IPv4.  When it was a free resource, people squandered it.
>
>I'm still looking to see how to totally turn off IPv6 in RouterOS, as
>its being on by default scares me.  It's essentially a giant back
>door used primarily by hackers.
>
>
> >-
> >Mike Hammett
> >Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Scott Carullo" 
> >To: wireless@wispa.org
> >Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:18:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?
> >
> >
> >I'm fairly sure you can change the binding order to adjust this
> >operation to suite your preference. (which one the computer tried first)
> >
> >I don't see IPv6 utilized in my real world until 5-10 years from
> >now. We do provide some customers v6 routed address space and our
> >entire network is routed and supports it, but thats because people
> >like to play with it because its something new in the networking
> >world they want to understand, not because anyone actually requires
> >it. It does provide a small marketing bonus, for those that don't
> >understand it - sounds good any way lol
> >
> >I see it as somewhat as a liability to my network, since there are
> >sure to be bugs in its implementation and dual stack functionality.
> >Just a fear I have, been there done that with different routing
> >protocols in the past and the programmers have not yet achieved
> >perfection yet :)
> >
> >But, I flex, have to let people have their v6 fun (employees and
> >customers alike...)
> >

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?

[Fred Goldstein]

At 10/28/2012 07:09 PM, you wrote:
>On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 16:54 -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> > An article I wrote seven years ago but is still somewhat current
> > (since IPv6 is always five years away ;-) ):
> > IPv6:  More Filling, Less Taste http://www.ionary.com/ion-ipv6.html
> >
> > And a more general slide presentation on the topic of naming and
> > addressing by John Day from 2010, which points out why IPv6 is
> > answering the wrong question and solving a non-problem while the
> > actual problems are ignored:
> >
> > http://www.pouzinsociety.org/images/KoreaNamingFund100218.pdf
>
>
>No matter how long you hold onto and continue to promote, IPv6 IS what
>is happening.  You don't have to like it or adopt it, but your ideas
>didn't "win".  At best, you will have to wait a few years and say "I
>told you so.  Now let's try my ideas."  It's not even an issue of
>whether you were/are right or wrong in your opinions...

My favorite ideas (not that I'm the lead architect behind them) 
haven't been fully developed yet, so they can't have won or lost 
yet.  This takes time.

IPv6 has lost many times over.  The point of the articles is that 
*the whole concept of large address spaces is wrong*.  IPv6 solves a 
non-problem.  Yes, your dog is now getting enough cheese.  This won't 
stop burglars, especially if you don't even have a dog.  Until RINA 
is available, IPv4 address space is more than adequate.  The protocol 
still sucks but inadequate address space is the least of its problems.

I am thinking about writing a little opinionated history piece about 
where IPv6 and IPv4 and their addressing actually came from.  It's a 
real fustercluck.  You assume that the best and the brightest must 
have really thought it out, but it didn't quite happen that way.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

[WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect 
America Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a 
further NPRM about Phase I funding.

As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that 
offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big 
ones) to bring "broadband" to "unserved" areas that they otherwise 
wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed, 
mostly by Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however 
whined that the definition of "served" should be changed to 
specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to 
overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned that one down, though 
CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.

The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf
 
asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could 
of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!), 
that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select 
from.  One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which 
begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of 
funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for 
the least subsidy money gets it.

Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option, 
essentially a second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I 
rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of 
questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines:

1)  Redefine "unserved" to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service, 
vs. 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the 
National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The 
agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served 
by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed "unserved", 
since it's not 4/1.

2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an 
area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue 
the matter to the FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP 
could claim that the map omitted them by mistake.  But it points out 
that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE 
MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.)

They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census 
blocks0 next month.

There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775 
per new customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second 
round.  Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return 
Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy 
Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more 
elaborate cost model now being debated.

There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to 
build a certain amount of "second mile" (basically, exchange feeder 
fiber) as well as "last mile" distribution.  But there's no clear 
obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice. 
They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through 
served areas in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on 
the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC.

Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved 
areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers, 
*but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they 
would.  The applications are merely suggestions of where they might 
find their unserved customers.   They can actually spend it 
elsewhere, so long as they get at least one customer added per $775.

An open question is that several awardees said that their proposed 
service areas are confidential. The FCC has not decided if this is 
acceptable, so it's an open question now.  I'd think that a WISP 
should be allowed to know if the ILEC plans to build subsidized 
service to an area they're thinking of building to, so this should be 
public information, not confidential.  So tell the FCC!

I am hoping the FCC Committee and others interested will take note of 
this.  It probably won't reach the Federal Register for a while, and 
then the 30 day Comment period begins.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701  

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/28/2012 05:56 PM, Blair Davis wrote:
For a one time payment of $775 per home, I can connect ALL the 
unconnected homes in my county...


But that is not how it works, is it?


Alas, Phase I is for incumbents only.

Phase II, when it happens next year, will allow others to bid.  This 
will probably not be a one-time capital subsidy (which is not how USF 
normally works) but the more routine monthly subsidy, which is 
typically used to pay off RUS loans.


Just who is eligible to bid on Phase is not determined yet.

I'll be buried in red tape and paper for the rest of my life, 
right?  And, of course, since I took their money, they can now tell 
me how to run my network and so on...


That would be a problem.  The rural ILECs who live on USF have staff 
or consultants to handle it for them.  It's their main business, 
after all; running the network is secondary.



I'd be happy if I can just block everyone else in my county from getting it.


If you're on the map with 3/.768, you're probably okay.  Those who 
are not on the map should follow Rich's advice; there are ways to 
make it fairly easy.




On 11/28/2012 5:16 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:


The FCC's home page ( transition.fcc.gov ) has an item about Connect
America Fund, posted with no description.  This turns out to be a
further NPRM about Phase I funding.

As you may recall, CAF Phase I was the short-term (2012) step that
offered $775 per line to price-cap ILECs (the Bells and other big
ones) to bring "broadband" to "unserved" areas that they otherwise
wouldn't. It was budgeted for $300M but only about $115M was claimed,
mostly by Frontier.  The Bells didn't take much.  CenturyLink however
whined that the definition of "served" should be changed to
specifically exclude areas WISPs, so they could get subsidy money to
overbuild existing WISPs.  The FCC turned that one down, though
CenturyLink did take money for some other areas.

The new Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:
<http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf>http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1119/FCC-12-138A1.pdf 


asks what to do about the remaining Phase I money.  While they could
of course just not spend it, lowering the USF tax (now around 17%!),
that's not one of the two options they are proposing to select
from.  One option is to simply add this funding to Phase II, which
begins in 2013.  Phase II allows for competition in the awarding of
funds; there will be a reverse auction, and the bidder who asks for
the least subsidy money gets it.

Most of the FNPRM, however, is devoted to the other option,
essentially a second round of Phase I.  They propose changing Phase I
rules to encourage the ILECs to take more money.  There are a lot of
questions about details, but the basic ideas are along these lines:

1)  Redefine "unserved" to be anywhere that doesn't have 4/1 service,
vs. 768k/200k in the first round.  This would be based on the
National Broadband Map, using 3M/768k as a surrogate for 4/1.  (The
agencies apparently hadn't agreed on speed tiers.)  So an area served
by a WISP at 2M/500k, or by Canopy 100s, would be deemed "unserved",
since it's not 4/1.

2)  Allow challenges to the national map.  So if an ILEC thinks an
area is unserved even if a WISP claims it's served, they can argue
the matter to the FCC.  This works both ways, so I suppose an ISP
could claim that the map omitted them by mistake.  But it points out
that a WISP SHOULD MAKE SURE ITS COVERAGE AREAS ARE ON THE
MAP!  (Just a little shouting in case anyone didn't hear it.)

They are supposed to come out with a list of unserved areas (census
blocks0 next month.

There are some other interesting details.  Phase I awards are $775
per new customer.  That number may be adjusted in this second
round.  Also, in areas served by (rural, subsidized) Rate of Return
Carriers, the subsidy number comes from the FCC's High Cost Proxy
Model.  In Phase 2, these areas get subsidized according to a more
elaborate cost model now being debated.

There is also the possibility that the Phase I recipient may have to
build a certain amount of "second mile" (basically, exchange feeder
fiber) as well as "last mile" distribution.  But there's no clear
obligation to make this available at wholesale, which would be nice.
They also ask about how to handle builds that have to go through
served areas in order to reach unserved ones.  So even if you're on
the map, you could get overbuilt by the ILEC.

Note that a Phase I awardee must apply to serve specific unserved
areas and applies to serve a certain number of unserved subscribers,
*but* they do not actually have to use it where they said they
would.  The applications are merely suggestions of where they might
find their unserved customers.   They can actual

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/30/2012 10:17 AM, Rick Harnish wrote:

Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="=_NextPart_000_031F_01CDCEE3.F0FCA680"
Content-Language: en-us

I don't think it is fruitless at all.  I'm sure there are a lot of 
companies (DSL, Satellite, Mobile and some cable) that are on the 
map but cannot guarantee sustained speeds of 4 by 1.  Actually, the 
4 by 1 criteria is what is being suggested in the rewrite.  It has 
not been adopted yet.


Satellite and mobile coverage are not considered "served" for the 
purposes of finding a USF "unsubsidized competitor"; WISPs and 
wireline services are.


But Rick's last sentence is important:  This is a proposal, not yet a 
rule.  It is open for Comment.  They are trying to find a way to give 
away more USF money, and disqualifying more unsubsidized competitors 
(WISPs) is one option on the table.  Comments that take exception to 
that approach could help influence them.


The FNPRM proposes selecting between two alternative approaches.  One 
is to raise the unsubsidized bar to 4/1.  The other is to end Phase I 
and put the remaining money into Phase II, which comes 
later.  Certainly the latter approach is better for WISPs in the 
short term.  If the extended Phase I approach is used, you could 
comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is excessive, and perhaps 
say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even Canopy 100 can 
probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.


So being on the map doesn't hurt and may help.

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
On Behalf Of Doug Clark

Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 10:01 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Bc!



Correct me if I am wrong here Rick,  it will be fruitless to do the 
map unless you are able to maintain customer speeds of 4megs down 
and 1 meg up.  If you service your customer at speeds lower


than that then it does not matter, the FCC will fund the Telcos...



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/30/2012 11:45 AM, Matt wrote:
> > approach is used, you could comment that raising it from 768/200 to 4/1 is
> > excessive, and perhaps say a 1.5/384 standard is more appropriate.  Even
> > Canopy 100 can probably claim that (if it's not loaded), though YMMV.
>
>Are you saying no one is providing service past 1.5/384 with Canopy 100?

I'm referring to the 900 MHz version with a 4 Mbps one-way burst 
rate.  That won't pass the 4/1 test.


  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC Connect America Fund -- It's Baaaackkkk!

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/30/2012 03:26 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
>The rule as it stands now is 3 meg down and 768 up. The 4 meg down and 1 meg
>up was something put in the National Broadband Plan by the white house team.
>Problem with that is the National Broadband Map (of which was already spec'd
>out when they wrote that plan) uses download speed tier breakouts of 3 and 6
>meg and 768 and 1.5 meg. There will be no way to actually compute the 4 meg
>1 meg rule unless they change the national broadband map AND they get all
>carriers to revise their reporting. The rule is not really 4 meg and 1 meg
>either, it's an aggregate to 5 meg, you could be doing 3 meg down and 2 up
>and meet the standard. Remember that is currently just your advertised
>maximum download and upload speed. Not all of your customers have to
>subscribe to that. A WISP even using 900 MHz could limit those plans to say
>only 1 to 5% of the customers on an AP and technically still be within the
>rules.

Yes, the FCC and the mapping folks are out of sync. So the FCC 
proposal says that 4/1 would officially be the new speed *but* really 
it's just being on the map at 3/.768, since that's the closest map 
speed.  They call the map a lower speed "surrogate" for 4/1.

If you think that's a disconnect, just try to get the FCC's Wireline 
[prevention of] Competition Bureau to play nice with the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau.  Even Abe Lincoln would have trouble 
getting that team of rivals to work together.

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: I have to share this.. Its BIG news for Colorado ISP's..

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/6/2012 06:56 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:
>probably will be tomorrow.. I got a call from my Boss who got a call
>from Greg Brophy who got a call from Cory Gardner..
>Then I found the tweets..
>
>Cory's tweet
>Rep. Cory Gardner @repcorygardner
>
>BREAKING: Grant suspended for govt funded broadband provider EAGLE-Net
>due to "ongoing concerns" relating to compliance with grant rules

The suspension letter was posted on the ntia web site.  However, that 
site is not very reliable, and doesn't seem to be up now.  A copy was 
downloaded by the lawyer who has been leading the opposition to ENA 
(I've been helping him out a bit myself) and he sent it to me.

ENA's grant was suspended on (theoretically) environmental 
grounds.  By not building where they had originally proposed, and by 
not doing full environmental review of the actual revised routes that 
they were building, they were in violation of the grant.  So they are 
frozen.  They can get permission to start building again if they can 
complete the various requirements (quite a few, actually) that they 
are not in compliance with.  Of course the easiest way to do that 
would be to go back to the originally-approved plan.  You know, the 
one whose maps were "redacted" in the original public form of the 
application by having a black box layer placed atop them in the 
multi-layered PDF... gee that isn't hard to remove in OpenOffice, is it?
:-)

>On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
> > is there a news article or something???
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Ryan Ghering  wrote:
> >>
> >> SenatorBrophy @SenatorBrophy
> >>
> >> Eagle-Net grant pulled. Stimulus boon-doogle that hurt businesses in
> >> rural Colorado reigned in. Damage was already done, recovery starts.
> >>
> >> Word is the CEO of Eagle-Net has also resigned!!!
> >>
> >> BEST NEWS EVER!!!

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: I have to share this.. Its BIG news for Colorado ISP's..

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/7/2012 08:56 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>The environmental certifications aren't what bother me (well, it 
>bothers me that they need them in the first place), but that they 
>were building where they weren't funded for.

I can understand some of the environmental rules; digging up the 
ground in wetlands and other sensitive areas can be quite 
harmful.  However, the actual processes are probably a lot more 
details and complex than they need to be, especially since nothing 
spills out of a communications conduit or fiber pipe.

But it was a convenient way to call ENA out for building where they 
were not supposed to.  They were apparently trying to reach their 
percentage milestones by building fiber in low-cost prairie areas of 
eastern Colorado instead of high-cost mountains of western 
Colorado.  Only others had already built in the east, with REA 
funding, so it wasn't needed there, and it left the west 
unserved.  ENA (and NTIA) were given several offers to settle, but 
turned them down, or pretended to accept them but went ahead anyway.

>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions
>http://www.ics-il.com
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Fred Goldstein" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 8:06:37 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: I have to share this.. Its BIG news for 
>Colorado ISP's..
>
>At 12/6/2012 06:56 PM, Ryan Ghering wrote:
> >probably will be tomorrow.. I got a call from my Boss who got a call
> >from Greg Brophy who got a call from Cory Gardner..
> >Then I found the tweets..
> >
> >Cory's tweet
> >Rep. Cory Gardner @repcorygardner
> >
> >BREAKING: Grant suspended for govt funded broadband provider EAGLE-Net
> >due to "ongoing concerns" relating to compliance with grant rules
>
>The suspension letter was posted on the ntia web site.  However, that
>site is not very reliable, and doesn't seem to be up now.  A copy was
>downloaded by the lawyer who has been leading the opposition to ENA
>(I've been helping him out a bit myself) and he sent it to me.
>
>ENA's grant was suspended on (theoretically) environmental
>grounds.  By not building where they had originally proposed, and by
>not doing full environmental review of the actual revised routes that
>they were building, they were in violation of the grant.  So they are
>frozen.  They can get permission to start building again if they can
>complete the various requirements (quite a few, actually) that they
>are not in compliance with.  Of course the easiest way to do that
>would be to go back to the originally-approved plan.  You know, the
>one whose maps were "redacted" in the original public form of the
>application by having a black box layer placed atop them in the
>multi-layered PDF... gee that isn't hard to remove in OpenOffice, is it?
>:-)
>
> >On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
> > > is there a news article or something???
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Ryan Ghering  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> SenatorBrophy @SenatorBrophy
> > >>
> > >> Eagle-Net grant pulled. Stimulus boon-doogle that hurt businesses in
> > >> rural Colorado reigned in. Damage was already done, recovery starts.
> > >>
> > >> Word is the CEO of Eagle-Net has also resigned!!!
> > >>
> > >> BEST NEWS EVER!!!
>
>   --
>   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>   +1 617 795 2701
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/8/2013 6:23 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
> I'm not so sure that MPLS support is being worked on. There is
> certainly no commitment to it from Ubiquiti's forum reps and based on
> the fact that there is no actively-maintained, feature-complete,
> freely-available MPLS implementation for Linux, I'm not holding my
> breath.
>
> Why should I only run MPLS on a Cisco or Juniper device? There are many
> people happily running MPLS on routerOS, including VPLS which is not
> available on Cisco devices until you start to get into the very
> expensive end of town.

For the moment, if you're doing enterprise managed services (the highest 
profit end of the "ISP" business, though a stretch for most WISPs), MPLS 
is the only game in town.  You do it on a router that has it, or on a 
"switch" that has it.  Enterprises use their own IP space (usually 10.x) 
and thus service providers have to stay at a lower layer. And you can't 
really do VoIP decently (full quality) without some kind of QoS-enabled 
shim below IP.  If you're outside of the scope of a Carrier Ethernet VC, 
then you probably are using MPLS.

There is MPLS for Linux, which presumably is what RouterOS uses, since 
they don't make their own sources available and they'd probably have to 
if they wrote it So I'm surprised that Vyatta hasn't bothered with 
it.  Cisco is way too expensive.  RouterOS boxes on big Intel iron are 
more capable, though RouterOS can be a bid dodgey at times (as can a lot 
of other systems).

>
> On 09.01.2013 10:11, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> You are correct. No MPLS yet. But that is being worked on I'm sure.
>> On the other hand - if you really need MPLS shouldn't you be running
>> a
>> Cisco or a Juniper?
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 18:06, Andrew Jones  wrote:
>>
>>> The software does not do everything that mikrotik's routerOS does.
>>> Where is the MPLS support, something that many people use on
>>> routerOS?
>>>

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/8/2013 7:02 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> What about VLANing that traffic?  As fat as the ER. If enough  people want 
> MPLS they will add it. You can't say the same for MikroTik with their 
> egotistic mentality.

I totally get what you mean about MT.  We've got some ROS boxes doing 
good service, but then I tried a pair of 951s at home and had to take 
them out, as they just don't stay up.  It's not uniform, and you get 
what you get.  Vyatta doesn't compile in MPLS so EdgeOS doesn't have it. 
Vyatta is now Brocade so I don't know how flexible they'll be.

VLANing is of no use.  That provides a degree of protection against 
interception, but no QoS and no protection against DDoS.  And it's kind 
of ugly.  Not that MPLS isn't ugly, but until RINA is ready it can sort 
of work.

> Have you ever tried to convince them there is a bug?
>
> On Jan 8, 2013, at 18:46, Fred Goldstein  wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2013 6:23 PM, Andrew Jones wrote:
>>> I'm not so sure that MPLS support is being worked on. There is
>>> certainly no commitment to it from Ubiquiti's forum reps and based on
>>> the fact that there is no actively-maintained, feature-complete,
>>> freely-available MPLS implementation for Linux, I'm not holding my
>>> breath.
>>>
>>> Why should I only run MPLS on a Cisco or Juniper device? There are many
>>> people happily running MPLS on routerOS, including VPLS which is not
>>> available on Cisco devices until you start to get into the very
>>> expensive end of town.
>>
>> For the moment, if you're doing enterprise managed services (the highest
>> profit end of the "ISP" business, though a stretch for most WISPs), MPLS
>> is the only game in town.  You do it on a router that has it, or on a
>> "switch" that has it.  Enterprises use their own IP space (usually 10.x)
>> and thus service providers have to stay at a lower layer. And you can't
>> really do VoIP decently (full quality) without some kind of QoS-enabled
>> shim below IP.  If you're outside of the scope of a Carrier Ethernet VC,
>> then you probably are using MPLS.
>>
>> There is MPLS for Linux, which presumably is what RouterOS uses, since
>> they don't make their own sources available and they'd probably have to
>> if they wrote it So I'm surprised that Vyatta hasn't bothered with
>> it.  Cisco is way too expensive.  RouterOS boxes on big Intel iron are
>> more capable, though RouterOS can be a bid dodgey at times (as can a lot
>> of other systems).
>>
>>>
>>> On 09.01.2013 10:11, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>>>> You are correct. No MPLS yet. But that is being worked on I'm sure.
>>>> On the other hand - if you really need MPLS shouldn't you be running
>>>> a
>>>> Cisco or a Juniper?
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 18:06, Andrew Jones  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The software does not do everything that mikrotik's routerOS does.
>>>>> Where is the MPLS support, something that many people use on
>>>>> routerOS?
>>>>>
>>
>> --
>>   Fred R. Goldstein  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
>


-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/15/2013 2:39 PM, Simon Westlake wrote:
>
>> For the moment, if you're doing enterprise managed services (the highest
>> profit end of the "ISP" business, though a stretch for most WISPs), MPLS
>> is the only game in town.  You do it on a router that has it, or on a
>> "switch" that has it.  Enterprises use their own IP space (usually 10.x)
>> and thus service providers have to stay at a lower layer. And you can't
>> really do VoIP decently (full quality) without some kind of QoS-enabled
>> shim below IP.  If you're outside of the scope of a Carrier Ethernet VC,
>> then you probably are using MPLS.
>>
>> There is MPLS for Linux, which presumably is what RouterOS uses, since
>> they don't make their own sources available and they'd probably have to
>> if they wrote it So I'm surprised that Vyatta hasn't bothered with
>> it.  Cisco is way too expensive.  RouterOS boxes on big Intel iron are
>> more capable, though RouterOS can be a bid dodgey at times (as can a lot
>> of other systems).
>>
> Fred,
>
> Which feature complete/stable MPLS implementation for Linux do you know
> of? I haven't seen any and I'd be interested to check it out.

I don't know who is feature complete, or even what constitutes feature 
complete these days, given how MPLS is sort of a family of moving 
targets.  I've looked around and seen a few different Linux projects, in 
various states of partial completion, some seeming to have happy users 
but no support and others still under way.  It's typical Linux, where 
the GPL is supposed to make it easy to share but in practice everyone 
likes to write their own stuff, getting the easy 80% done but not taking 
the 80% of the time for the rest.  But RouterOS got something out there, 
and if it's in the kernel, somebody should have made sources available. 
  Not that MT has to say where it came from!  (Or did they fit it into 
userland?)

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/15/2013 8:29 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
> FWIW OpenBSD has L3 MPLS working with a LDP implementation and BGP. No
> VPLS yet but I think I saw something about starting to work on
> pseudowires last year.

Good catch.  You can see MPLS features improving release by release 
through the OpenBSD history.  They treat it as fairly basic.

>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Simon Westlake  <mailto:si...@powercode.com>> wrote:
>
> > I don't know who is feature complete, or even what constitutes feature
> > complete these days, given how MPLS is sort of a family of moving
> > targets.  I've looked around and seen a few different Linux projects, in
> > various states of partial completion, some seeming to have happy users
> > but no support and others still under way.  It's typical Linux, where
> > the GPL is supposed to make it easy to share but in practice everyone
> > likes to write their own stuff, getting the easy 80% done but not taking
> > the 80% of the time for the rest.  But RouterOS got something out there,
> > and if it's in the kernel, somebody should have made sources available.
> >Not that MT has to say where it came from!  (Or did they fit it into
> > userland?)
> >
> My understanding was that the MT implementation was closed source and,
> as Jeff said, either written in house or licensed from some third party.
>
> I don't know that for sure but, as I'm fairly sure there is no open
> source MPLS project out there that implements everything MT has, they
> have either done considerable work to complete all the missing features
> or wrote from scratch.
>
> I agree with you on the 80% statement but there are benchmark projects
> in Linux for most networking functionality (e.g. tc for rate limiting,
> iptables for firewall, quagga for dynamic routing) and I haven't found
> one of those for MPLS yet.
>
> --
> Simon Westlake
> Powercode.com
> (920) 351-1010 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti ERLite-3 3-port Router

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/15/2013 8:29 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
> FWIW OpenBSD has L3 MPLS working with a LDP implementation and BGP. No
> VPLS yet but I think I saw something about starting to work on
> pseudowires last year.

Good catch.  You can see MPLS features improving release by release 
through the OpenBSD history.  They treat it as fairly basic.

>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Simon Westlake  <mailto:si...@powercode.com>> wrote:
>
> > I don't know who is feature complete, or even what constitutes feature
> > complete these days, given how MPLS is sort of a family of moving
> > targets.  I've looked around and seen a few different Linux projects, in
> > various states of partial completion, some seeming to have happy users
> > but no support and others still under way.  It's typical Linux, where
> > the GPL is supposed to make it easy to share but in practice everyone
> > likes to write their own stuff, getting the easy 80% done but not taking
> > the 80% of the time for the rest.  But RouterOS got something out there,
> > and if it's in the kernel, somebody should have made sources available.
> >Not that MT has to say where it came from!  (Or did they fit it into
> > userland?)
> >
> My understanding was that the MT implementation was closed source and,
> as Jeff said, either written in house or licensed from some third party.
>
> I don't know that for sure but, as I'm fairly sure there is no open
> source MPLS project out there that implements everything MT has, they
> have either done considerable work to complete all the missing features
> or wrote from scratch.
>
> I agree with you on the 80% statement but there are benchmark projects
> in Linux for most networking functionality (e.g. tc for rate limiting,
> iptables for firewall, quagga for dynamic routing) and I haven't found
> one of those for MPLS yet.
>
> --
> Simon Westlake
> Powercode.com
> (920) 351-1010 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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
>

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti airfiber on the same tower...

[Fred Goldstein]

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

No examples to cite yet, but it should be fine to have them both on the 
tower, so long as they're not using the same frequency.  AirFiber uses 
solid dishes with a very tight beam; the signal should be way down at 10 
degrees and a meter's spacing.  And the transmitted power output is very 
low.  The only reason I don't think they'd be good on the same frequency 
is that a bird or raindrops might reflect some signal back towards the 
tower.

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Router Question

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/13/2013 5:19 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
> Since their's no such thing as a 150Mbps LAN/WAN ports, you need to get
> one with gigabit ports. The Mikrotik RB751G-2HnD...has 5 Gig ports and
> any port can be configured for WAN and/or LAN setups. Includes 2.4GHz
> 30dBi/1000mW 802.11b/g/n wireless is you need it.  SRP is $80.

Well if you want to get picky there are 150 Mbps (STS-3) ports, but 
they're pretty obscure nowadays.  I think Cisco supports them for ATM, 
though it may be historical, not current product.  I'm curious what the 
application is.  Ancient Cisco stuff like that does show up on eBay at 
pretty low prices, but anything new and under $1k or so will probably 
only have Ethernet ports.

> On 02/12/2013 09:44 PM, ~NGL~ wrote:
>> I need a router with 1 150 Meg  wan port and at least 2  150 Meg lan
>> ports.
>> Wireless is not needed or could be turned.
>> Preferably under $200.00 and setup thru a Window interface.
>> Any recommends?
>> Thanx
>> NGL
>>  If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
>> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
>>
>
-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Rocket Titanium

[Fred Goldstein]

On 4/6/2013 2:20 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> They should have always been 48v. I think the only reason they
> weren't always 48v was because the RB5xx boards had problems
> producing noise at 48v.

The commercial wireless world (cell sites) is all 24 volt.  The wireline 
world is 48 volt.  So I can see why they would use 24 volts, but 48 is 
usually only for central office buildings, where there is no radio gear 
except, perhaps, some old-fashioned fixed microwave.  A handful of 
competitive players are doing microwave collocation in COs, but given 
the cost, a power converter would be the least of their worries.

>
>
> - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> - Original Message - From: "Robert"
>  To: "paolo difrancesco"
> , "WISPA General List"
>  Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2013 11:18:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Rocket Titanium
>
> Exactly...   UBNT looks more and more like a company trying less and
> less to stay out in front of the competition but locking in their
> customers...   Very apple-ish...   h   Robert was at apple...
>
>
> On 04/06/2013 09:11 AM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
>> Hi Josh
>>
>> I did not notice the voltage change, but it looks like more a
>> business strategy (their switch does 24V and 48V) to lockout other
>> vendors than a real technical need
>>
>> Should I reimplement again a new battery system at 48V for the
>> site? Hum
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>> Ya...better.  Different voltage though.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne
>>> St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Apr 6, 2013 11:04 AM, "Paolo Di Francesco"
>>> >> <mailto:paolo.difrance...@level7.it>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I was wondering if the Rockets-Titanium are stable, or if
>>> somebody is using them with success. Not sure if they perform
>>> better than the "plastic" ubiquiti
>>>
>>> Still missing the multiple SSID and IPv6 support, who knows if
>>> Ubiquiti will implement that sooner or later...
>>>
>>> Let me know your feedback and if the extra cost worths the
>>> improvements :)
>>>
>>> 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 <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
>


-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Market data on growth of WISPs in the US ???

[Fred Goldstein]

On 4/17/2013 11:56 AM, Brough Turner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know where I could get the data for a graph that shows, per
> year, the growth in the number of WISPs and the growth in the number of
> subscribers served by WISPs?
>
> Forward looking forecasts from "market analyst" firms would also be cool
> (however bogus such things are), but historical data is my primary
> interest.  This seems like something we all should have available to
> promote our industry.

There are some "fixed wireless" numbers in the FCC's report Internet 
Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2011, at:
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0213/DOC-318810A1.pdf

Of course WISPs do not always report to the FCC.  It shows, as of 
YE2011, 712 providers of fixed wireless access, and 696k connections. 
This edition has historic data back to 2007, but the methodology changed 
in 2008 so the number of subscribers counted fell almost in half that 
year.  So take it all with a grain of salt.

Older reports on the FCC site go back farther, like this report as of 
2007: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-280906A1.pdf

But they only start to count Fixed Wireless as a separate category as of 
2005.  Before that it's lumped in with satellite, but fixed wireless is 
the bulk of the mixed wireless category.  Oddly, mobile wireless 
suddenly goes from almost nothing to huge in 2006.  Again, it's probably 
how they count it.

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Dayton Hamvention- any other WISPs going?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 5/15/2013 5:06 PM, Justin Wilson wrote:
>   My partner Steve Narducci will be setup with his qtenna stuff.  He does
> quads or something (not 100% sure what it is). http://www.qtenna.com
>

Wow, cubical quad antennas!  You don't see too many of them any more. 
Way back in my youth, when I was first getting onto the HF bands (mid to 
late 1960s), quads were very popular.  They worked pretty well.  But 
within a decade or so, they were a rarity.  The problem was wind and 
weather; they didn't last long.  Yagis were more rugged.  Steve's 
spider-hub quad design might be more rugged than the box-kite style of 
the past, though, which could make it practical.

The same wind load and weather problems apply to WISP antennas, of 
course, but on a much smaller (physical) scale.

The only time I went to Dayton was in 1976, when I worked the 73 
Magazine booth and drove Wayne's new little overloaded half-ton Mazda 
pickup truck from Peterborough to Dayton.  That was a trip.

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:49 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List' 
> Subject: [WISPA] Dayton Hamvention- any other WISPs going?
>
>> Well it is that time again...
>>
>> Dayton Hamvention 2013.
>> Since many fellow WISPS are also Hams, or they like to go to our events, I
>> thought I would make my yearly posting.
>>
>> This year, about 30,000 Ham Radio operators from around the World will
>> converge on the Hara Arena in Dayton Ohio.  Among all the regular things
>> you
>> might expect is the famous Fleamarket/Boneyard.   There will be thousands
>> of
>> outside exhibitors there with all sorts of things related to radio and
>> wireless.
>>
>> My Ham groups (Big Shanty Repeater Group and Atlanta Amateur Television)
>> will again be in spaces 3829,3830,3831,3832.  We also take all the surplus
>> gear from our WISP and make it available as well.
>> This year we will have lots of Ubiquiti (pre-M series), some Canopy, some
>> Ligowave/Deliberant and of course the Pepwave Surf 200s, which are very
>> popular.
>>
>> If you are planning to attend, please stop by and meet us/talk shop.   I
>> will be there Thursday afternoon (not open to public) as well as Friday
>> and
>> Saturday all day. If you are going, please drop me an Email.
>>
>> For Hamvention details:  http://hamvention.org
>>
>>
>> Ralph
>> Brightlan.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
>


-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Fiber MUX

[Fred Goldstein]

On 5/20/2013 11:12 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Hi All,
> Is anyone aware of a MUX that will let me MUX together T1s (needs to be
> transparent) and Ethernet?  I need to MUX them together on one end, and
> then unMUX on the other end.  Again... it all needs to be transparent.
>

What is the underlying physical layer, asynchronous (Ethernet, including 
a typical WISP radio) or isochronous (like a DS3)?  There are different 
muxes for each.  In the RAD catalog, for instance, the RICi family 
passes Ethernet over isochronous circuits (like native T1s and DS3s). 
The IPmux family passes T1s over native Ethernet.

Now one more thing to think about.  If you're carrying T1s 
transparently, you may need to pass the timing.  I've run into cases 
where the VoIP provider didn't realize that supplying the timing was 
required. Often the remote end T1 can just be clocked locally, and 
there's no need to pass timing across the Ethernet.  But if the customer 
needs you to be a timing source, you may need to use one of these two 
methods:

In one case it is straightforward -- when the physical layer is itself 
isochronous (self-clocked); that's how SONET and DS3 work, for instance. 
  A mux for that can just pass timing natively, if you set it up right.

If you're carrying the T1s over an asynchronous native medium like 
non-synchronous Ethernet (some Ethernet PMDs are synchronous and pass 
along timing, especially at 10G, but most aren't), and the T1s need 
timing, then you may need to supply the timing independent of the 
physical layer.  The usual way to do this is PWE3, Pseudowire Emulation 
over Ethernet, which is what the IPmux does; it's an option in Cisco 
(and many other) media gateways too.

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Strange problem with Canopy 9000APC

[Fred Goldstein]

On 6/13/2013 7:43 AM, David Hannum wrote:
> We're having an issue with a 9000APC that is very strange.  Here is the
> situation.  We have a remote water tank (stand pipe 75' high) that has a
> few homes around it.  So, we have a 9000APC and a connectorized 2450AP
> on the tower, both on Omni's.  The antennas are on a stand almost
> exactly 4' apart.  There are six subs on the 900MHz radio.  About a
> month ago, I had an issue where (after about 9 months) the signal to all
> of the customers just faded out, to the point that only two subs were
> still good.  I swapped the antenna and that did not help.  I swapped the
> radio, and that fixed the problem.  Trouble is, it only lasted about
> three weeks, and the same thing happened again.  I swapped the radio
> again yesterday, and today, I'm back in the same boat.  The radio in the
> AP keeps going out.  I had the climbers check the grounding, and we
> actually ran a dedicated ground yesterday off the water tank.  My knee
> jerk feeling today is that maybe the radios are too close together, and
> the 2450 is burning up the 900.  Could this be the case?  Any ideas?
> Here is an example of what happens.  Customers that run signals -47 to
> -57 become -70 to -75 and those who's signals were -70 and up fall clear
> off.  Swap the radio, and everything goes back to normal.  This is now
> three radios that have gone, each lasting a much shorter time than the
> previous.  (this one did not make it 24 hours).
> I can't completely rule out lightning - the tower is in a very wooded
> area.  But usually you burn up the NIC in that case - not weaken the radio.
> Thoughts?

Interesting mystery!  Clearly you don't want to blow more radios this way.

Any more clues about what may have happened right before the failures? 
I'm wondering about weather events.  Did it fail after a rain storm? 
Water coming in to the radio or corroding the antenna connectors might 
result.  And if the antenna's connector is flaky, re-attaching it to a 
new radio might be a temporary fix, but reattaching it to an old radio 
might "fix" it too (temporariy).  Have you examined the broken radios in 
the shop?

-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Fred Goldstein]

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 <mailto: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 mailto: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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



___
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



--
 Fred R. Goldstein  fred

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Fred Goldstein]

On 7/28/2013 2:34 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

Hi Fred,

on a related note... Neustar sending bills to anyone/everyone filling 
out FCC form 499, for LNP system, is that legit ?




Good question.  They are allowed to charge for LNP, and the formula for 
that is subject to some current arguments.  It is based on revenues, 
form 499. I'm not sure who is exempt, if anyone.



Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz

*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
mailto: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
mailto: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
*---*
  

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Fred Goldstein]

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 <mailto: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 "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
mailto: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
mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am attemptin

Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

[Fred Goldstein]

On 7/29/2013 8:22 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
A lawyer once told me that you aren't required to file with USAC for 
under $10k, but there is nothing preventing you. Don't mess around 
with the who does USF when dance, just do it from the beginning yourself.




That doesn't sound right to me.  If you are required to file except for 
being under the $10k, then you are expected to file a 499-A annually.  
You may not however elect to pay directly.  There are small carriers 
asking the FCC to let them waive de minimis status (which can under some 
circumstances be a disadvantage), but so far that hasn't been granted.





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

----
*From: *"Fred Goldstein" 
*To: *wireless@wispa.org
*Sent: *Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:06:13 PM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] VoIP Taxes, Fees, & Insanity

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
mailto: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 "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, an

Re: [WISPA] Scam Warning!!!

[Fred Goldstein]

On 8/17/2013 2:11 AM, Blair Davis wrote:

Spell check wins again... $#$%@!!



Eye sea yore miss steaks butt thee spill chequers eye halve en my pea 
sea dew knot.



--
On 8/16/2013 6:18 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

Revived or received. :). You may just have incriminated yourself.

On Aug 16, 2013, at 17:49, Blair Davis  wrote:


Fake credit card settlements from authorize.net are being revived by
myself and others!!!

Be warned!

Amounts are in the range of $6,000-10,000 and refunds in the range
$500-$2,000.

The links all look legit, but they not.

Blair

--
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




--
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan  49010
269-686-8648



--
 Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
 Interisle Consulting Group
 +1 617 795 2701

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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Fred Goldstein]

On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, 
there just isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 
and wondering why it doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try 
again. The Canopy will work a little better because it requires less 
signal, but it also has nowhere near the same throughput, so they're 
really apples and oranges.




The spec sheet makes it sound as if -76 is more than adequate, and in a 
PmP environment, it's often hard to get a stronger signal.  Are the poor 
results from trying to run at too high a rate, like MCS5, such that 
running at say MCS1 would improve results?  Or is it just not very 
sensitive, with a higher noise temp than Cambium?


--
 Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
 Interisle Consulting Group
 +1 617 795 2701

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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Fred Goldstein]

On 8/22/2013 4:09 PM, Steve Barnes wrote:


But Mike that is the Rub. All things are never the same.  900 is dirty 
and Susceptible to so much noise and reflection because the signal 
does not die as quick.  I understand the "Theory" but still have a 
hard time understanding how a slower carrier wave (900MHz) can carry 
the same Data as 5800MHz carrier wave but I know that it could in a 
vacuum. The issue is we don't live in a vacuum.





The "carrier" frequency has no impact on data-carrying capacity. 
Shannon's Law dictates that the capacity of a channel to carry 
information is a function of its bandwidth and its signal to noise 
ratio.  If it is 10 MHz wide from 902 to 912, or 10 MHz from 5800 to 
5810, it's still 10 MHz.  And if the SNR is the same, the usable 
capacity is the same.


The issue of vacuum relates to things that make a path worse than the 
theoretical free space attenuation would dictate.  Take the 60 GHz band 
(57-64 GHz).  It has a primary allocation for satellite-to-satellite 
use.  Now there's your vacuum!  It's unlicensed because oxygen 
absorption at 60 GHz is around 14 dB/km, so anything done down here at 
the surface is unlikely to reach a satellite.  It's thus great for 
high-speed WLAN use, like WiGig. And the FCC last week raised the power 
limit for outdoor point-to-point use to 82 dBm, provided the antenna 
gain is 51 dB (derated 2 dB for each dB of lower gain that the antenna 
has).  This will allow huge bit rates because it's 7 GHz wide, but range 
at normal atmospheric pressure is going to be very limited.


900 GHz is nice in wooded areas because it gets through foliage much 
better than higher frequencies, but in many places it's already 
congested with meter readers and other devices.  Those, plus the limited 
bandwidth, are more likely to limit real-world performance than anything 
else.  A 6 GHz TVWS channel will do as well as 6 GHz on higher 
frequencies, though.  Better, actually, if you can get a big enough 
antenna.  But lower frequencies tend to need bigger antennas.  Maybe 
those old TV antennas we used to all have before cable will make a 
comeback. ;-)


--
 Fred R. Goldstein  fred "at" interisle.net
 Interisle Consulting Group
 +1 617 795 2701

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

Re: [WISPA] packaging suggestions

[Fred Goldstein]

s you want to ding.  But you can 
create a low-cost plan (say, <10 GB) for those who mainly need just 
email and web.  It still beats mobile.


Throttling T-Mobile style (say, down to 512/256k, not 80/24k) seems more 
friendly to me than hitting someone with a big bill.  That would be 
"neutral" but block TV.  And you could even let people "bank" last 
month's unused quota (AT&T does this with minutes, right?) for those 
special occasions (like the Breaking Bad finale), if your software can 
handle it.  But a bill-based system is easier to implement... at least 
if you don't count post-bill customer calls.


I wish there were an easy answer but this is going to be a big issue so 
it's good that you're bringing it up for discussion.


--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Siklu/Dragonwave 80 Ghz..

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/14/2013 7:33 PM, Bob Moldashel wrote:
> OK.  So a customer pops up out of no where and says he is interested in
> one of these links.  Does anyone have any positive/negative/neutral
> comments/experience?
>
> On or off list
>

We have a few Dragonwaves going, 50 and 200 Mbps, some for a few miles 
in an urban core environment, and they seem pretty nice.  The licensed 
80 GHz band has much better range than unlicensed 60 GHz, though of 
course the very narrow beamwidth means you have to have a good antenna 
mount and be careful about storm damage, or about some bozo working on 
the roof who disturbs it.

-- 
  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

Re: [WISPA] Siklu/Dragonwave 80 Ghz..

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/14/2013 11:08 PM, Robert wrote:
> What are the max distances these will do with the 3 foot dishes?
> (moderate rain, not tropical rain)...
>

I don't think we have pushed the envelope here.  I've seen the charts, 
though.  It very much depends on your tolerance for outages.  If this is 
the sole link to some place, and it is mission-critical, then you can't 
tolerate much down time and you can get really hurt by rain.  If the 
rain is falling 40 mm/hour, it could knock around 15 dB/km off your 
path, which doesn't get you very far.  But that's unusual here in the 
northeast; most storms are maybe half that strong. Three or four miles 
should be quite reliable; a 10-mile link might be workable if you have a 
fallback path, but we haven't done it.

> On 10/14/2013 07:47 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 7:33 PM, Bob Moldashel wrote:
>>> OK.  So a customer pops up out of no where and says he is interested in
>>> one of these links.  Does anyone have any positive/negative/neutral
>>> comments/experience?
>>>
>>> On or off list
>>>
>>
>> We have a few Dragonwaves going, 50 and 200 Mbps, some for a few miles
>> in an urban core environment, and they seem pretty nice.  The licensed
>> 80 GHz band has much better range than unlicensed 60 GHz, though of
>> course the very narrow beamwidth means you have to have a good antenna
>> mount and be careful about storm damage, or about some bozo working on
>> the roof who disturbs it.
>>
> _______
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>


-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  k1iofred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701

-- 
  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

Re: [WISPA] Windows XP

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/17/2013 10:08 PM, Clay Stewart wrote:

Offer service to upgrade for $99... WIN7 plus labor?



Remember, there is no upgrade from XP to Win7.  It has to be a clean 
install, wiping out existing embedded software installation.  (Now why 
embedded software even exists is a different story, but many costly 
applications work that way, because that's how MS tells them to do it, 
and MS Office is the worst example.) That's impractical for many users, 
so we happily stick with XP on our older machines.


I think the security risk is overstated.  Most of the patches are to 
very specific, obscure threats.  The biggest threats nowadays are in 
email attachments, web pages, and other things that people click on by 
mistake.  Those threats apply even to actively-patched systems.




On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Blair Davis <mailto:the...@wmwisp.net>> wrote:


That was why I brought it up.

I don't believe we can force users off XP.
Obviously, proper port blocking helps.  Placing your XP users on
source NAT'ed IP's might help.

Are there other options?  Packet filtering?  Email filtering? 
Something else?


-- 






On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Clay Stewart wrote:

That is a good point, "is there anything we can do" to get users
off XP? When these systems get infected (I would assume some savy
hackers and spammers are gearing up for the end of XP patches),
we will suffer too... in our networks.


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Greg Osborn
mailto:gregwosb...@gmail.com>> wrote:

It works itself out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eCd6xUSik

*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Monday, October 14, 2013 5:32 AM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Windows XP

Well, it won't be working for long if they don't upgrade.



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



*From: *"Blair Davis" mailto:the...@wmwisp.net>>
*To: *memb...@wispa.org <mailto:memb...@wispa.org>, "WISPA
General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
*Sent: *Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:09:39 PM
*Subject: *[WISPA] Windows XP

Windows XP security updates end in April 2014.

Windows XP usage still above 30%.

Is there anything we, as ISP's, can do to protect our users
who, for
whatever reason have not, will not or can not upgrade?

I have users who won't spend $$ to replace a working system
if they
don't see a good reason to.






--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Siklu/Dragonwave 80 Ghz..

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/14/2013 11:08 PM, Robert wrote:
> What are the max distances these will do with the 3 foot dishes?
> (moderate rain, not tropical rain)...
>

I don't think we have pushed the envelope here.  I've seen the charts, 
though.  It very much depends on your tolerance for outages.  If this is 
the sole link to some place, and it is mission-critical, then you can't 
tolerate much down time and you can get really hurt by rain.  If the 
rain is falling 40 mm/hour, it could knock around 15 dB/km off your 
path, which doesn't get you very far.  But that's unusual here in the 
northeast; most storms are maybe half that strong. Three or four miles 
should be quite reliable; a 10-mile link might be workable if you have a 
fallback path, but we haven't done it.

> On 10/14/2013 07:47 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> On 10/14/2013 7:33 PM, Bob Moldashel wrote:
>>> OK.  So a customer pops up out of no where and says he is interested in
>>> one of these links.  Does anyone have any positive/negative/neutral
>>> comments/experience?
>>>
>>> On or off list
>>>
>>
>> We have a few Dragonwaves going, 50 and 200 Mbps, some for a few miles
>> in an urban core environment, and they seem pretty nice.  The licensed
>> 80 GHz band has much better range than unlicensed 60 GHz, though of
>> course the very narrow beamwidth means you have to have a good antenna
>> mount and be careful about storm damage, or about some bozo working on
>> the roof who disturbs it.
>>
> _______
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>


-- 
  Fred R. Goldstein  k1iofred "at" interisle.net
  Interisle Consulting Group
  +1 617 795 2701
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] FW: FCC Adopts Order to Combat Rural Call Completion

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/28/2013 3:55 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
So not only are the rural telcos getting tens of thousands of dollars 
per line, but they can't properly complete a call?




The problem is/was that they are perfectly capable of completing calls 
that reach them, but instead of sending calls to them directly via LD 
providers, calls were being handed off, by the originating carriers, to 
VoIP long distance providers who handed them off to other VoIP long 
distance providers... and the call often didn't go through, or went 
through with inadequate call quality.


Some funny games have been played with arbitrage, trying to get around 
high rural-carrier switched access rates.


The PSTN and Internet legal/business models are quite different, albeit 
complementary.  In the Internet model, interconnection is all voluntary, 
and you can relay the packet through as many intermediaries as it takes, 
and it's all "best efforts" or blocked. It's not common carriage.  The 
PSTN model, in contrast, is mandatory interconnection and delivery of 
calls at regulated intercarrier rates.  (These are higher for small 
rural carriers than for large or urban carriers.)  Rural call completion 
became a problem when people with Internet experience tried to game the 
PSTN to lower the cost per minute.


--
 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

Re: [WISPA] FW: FCC Adopts Order to Combat Rural Call Completion

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

So they just chose poor VoIP upstreams?



Poor quality ones, yes.  Under current rules, being VoIP doesn't waive 
switched access rates.  Until the FCC ruled in late 2011 that VoIP 
termination was subject to interstate access (even on intrastate calls, 
where access rates were allowed to be higher until this year), many VoIP 
providers assumed that they were exempt, and the Bells usually went 
along with it.  But the rurals usually didn't, so there was no safe 
legal way to deliver calls cheaply to the rurals.  But small VoIP 
providers tried anyway.  And they charged less per minute than legit 
providers, so originating carriers chose them in their LCR tables.


And if the call didn't go through at all, well, the call was 
unprofitable anyway.  So this may have to some extent been a way to get 
around the rule of universal call completion. You make an effort to 
complete the call but do it badly enough so that it often fails... and 
if your customer really needs to call that location, they switch to 
another carrier. Which is fine since they're probably a negative-margin 
customer.  Remember, FCC rules require that *retail* long distance rates 
be averaged (costs the same to call a rural as an urban carrier), but 
wholesale rates vary (reflecting different call termination charges).




fg>The problem is/was that they are perfectly capable of completing 
calls that reach them, but instead of sending calls to them directly 
via LD providers, calls were being handed off, by the originating 
carriers, to VoIP long distance providers who handed them off to other 
VoIP long distance providers... and the call often didn't go through, 
or went through with inadequate call quality.


Some funny games have been played with arbitrage, trying to get around 
high rural-carrier switched access rates.


The PSTN and Internet legal/business models are quite different, 
albeit complementary.  In the Internet model, interconnection is all 
voluntary, and you can relay the packet through as many intermediaries 
as it takes, and it's all "best efforts" or blocked.  It's not common 
carriage.  The PSTN model, in contrast, is mandatory interconnection 
and delivery of calls at regulated intercarrier rates.  (These are 
higher for small rural carriers than for large or urban carriers.) 
Rural call completion became a problem when people with Internet 
experience tried to game the PSTN to lower the cost per minute.

--
  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



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] MDU wiring

[Fred Goldstein]

On 10/29/2013 10:20 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:


Then I have to add a switch and ups on each floor... I was thinking of 
home running all to the top floor... no?




How big is each floor?  This may be a case where exact mapping of the 
route matters.


Cat5e at 100 Mbps is rated for 100 meters maximum between actives. In 
practice it often works farther but it's not good practice to risk it in 
this sort of installation.  It comes in 4-pair (drop), 25-pair, and 
100-pair cables.  The total length includes, then, any vertical risers 
(25 or 100 pairs), any horizontal pulls (probably 4-pair), and any 
connecting cords.


A 15-story building means the vertical distance alone, to the farthest 
closet, uses up about half the total budget.  Then add in the stuff on 
each floor.  If it's a small, tall building, like some cramped hotels 
I've stayed in in New York ;-) , then it still might work if it's all 
home run.


Otherwise, you probably need more than one switch.  You might put the 
hub switch in the main room and run 25-pair or 100-pair to panels on 
nearby floors, depending on the unit count, and then light tributary 
switches on more distant floors, each serving a few nearby floors.  I 
would not however daisy-chain anything.  Two levels of switch, hub and 
floor, tops.  And while managed switches cost more, they're probably 
worth it if you're going to have to maintain this, to reduce truck rolls.


*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 <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143




___

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



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] 5.8GHz all frequencies bad?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/4/2014 2:20 PM, Adam Greene wrote:


Hi,

We have a small Alvarion VL 5.8GHz cell with two links of less than a 
mile. Generally they are beautiful. However, since Dec 23, we are 
getting lots of packet loss and high latency on almost all frequencies.


Every day we have to go through all the available frequencies in order 
to find one which is tolerable. Usually there is only one frequency 
from 5740-5830MHz which is usable, and every day it changes, sometimes 
multiple times during the day.


We have rebooted the AU to no avail and upgraded all devices to recent 
firmware (6.5.7), all to no avail.


What do you think is happening? Perhaps someone turned up a device in 
the area which is jamming most of 5.8GHz? But then why would the 
frequencies shift every so often? I wonder if there is a particular 
wireless manufacturer whose gear behaves like that.


Perhaps there is water in the connector of the AU? But then why do the 
frequencies seem to shift around like this?


Any ideas welcome. The site is about 2 hours away so we're trying to 
avoid a truck roll, otherwise would just swap gear / check 
weatherizing, etc. Maybe there's no avoiding it though.



Maybe somebody nearby set up a radio and turned on DFS2, as if it were 
in the 5250-5725 range.  That will change frequencies when it thinks it 
hears radar.  I've observed MikroTik radios detecting radar where there 
almost certainly was none; your signal or somebody else's might "false" 
them.  With DFS enabled, it can go anywhere within the scan range.


(I sympathize with the distance. I drove right past your office today.)

--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/7/2014 8:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:


Its doable with the PTP650's, add 3' dishes for a nice rx gain



I seem to recall a story several years ago, before Orthogon was bought 
by Moto, about a link somewhere in Central America (Nicaragua or 
Panama?) that used a pair of 5.8 GHz Orthogon radios, 6 foot dishes, and 
went over 100 miles.  Hilltops and a really big dish will do wonders.  
Licensed 6 GHz radios, with their 6' dishes, are considered very 
reliable out to 30 miles.  An unlicensed link is not protected against 
interference the same way but several of the 5.8 GHz options seem plausible.


But I wouldn't touch 24 GHz. It's ground zero for rain fade, so long 
hops there are only useful on sunny days, best in the desert. ;-) The 
adjacent 23 GHz licensed band has less rain fade, though, and is worth 
considering, and it should be duck soup on 18 GHz, though again licensed 
radios cost a bit more, especially the higher-powered or higher-speed 
options. We're shooting a DragonWave 18 GHz hop about 8 miles across 
Boston Hahbah and it's very solid, though extreme weather might cause 
some dropouts.  We didn't see any during this past week's snow, though 
signals faded a few dB during yesterday's rain.



Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143

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

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 9:21 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios

Seems like you are asking a lot of unlicensed, unless it is completely 
quiet in your area...


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone



 Original message 
From: Ian Framson
Date:01/07/2014 6:10 PM (GMT-07:00)
To: WISPA General List
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

Trade Show Internet logo 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradeshowinternet.com>
www.tradeshowinternet.com 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tradeshowinternet.com%2F> 

i...@tradeshowinternet.com 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=mailto%3Aian%40tradeshowinternet.com>

(866) 385-1504 x701
(818) 590-7475 mobile/
/(415) 704-3153 fax

Connect With UsLinkedIn 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fianframson>Facebook 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTradeShowInternet>Google 
Plus Page 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplus.google.com%2F115903484193884732934>Twitter 
<http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FTSInternet>




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



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Wireless Digest, Vol 24, Issue 16

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/8/2014 9:35 AM, Jack Lehmann wrote:
In NYC (outer borough), I have a bunch of 24GHz SAF ~2.5 mile links 
doing very nicely. Very satisfied with their performance. All that, 
knowing that there's always the risk of unlicensed interference 
relative to licensed. Still holding nicely though, considering the 
wild weather we've been having. I also have not seen RF interference 
issues at all.




Just to clarify... I wouldn't touch 24 GHz *for an 11-mile link*. But 
they're great for shorter links, like yours, especially in urban areas.  
And the narrow beams do limit interference. We do fine with 60 GHz too, 
for very short hops, like half a mile, though preferably with a 5 GHz 
backup or alternative path.


I am a bit curious about vehicle radar, though.  I've seen it mentioned 
as operating in the 24 and 70 GHz bands. Only a few high-end cars have 
it now but it is likely to become more common. Does anyone know how 
often it uses 24 GHz? This might eventually impact urban paths or those 
that go over highways.



Message: 1
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:11:47 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios
To: wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
Message-ID: <52ccde13.1060...@ionary.com
<mailto:52ccde13.1060...@ionary.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On 1/7/2014 8:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>
> Its doable with the PTP650's, add 3' dishes for a nice rx gain
>

I seem to recall a story several years ago, before Orthogon was bought
by Moto, about a link somewhere in Central America (Nicaragua or
Panama?) that used a pair of 5.8 GHz Orthogon radios, 6 foot
dishes, and
went over 100 miles.  Hilltops and a really big dish will do wonders.
Licensed 6 GHz radios, with their 6' dishes, are considered very
reliable out to 30 miles.  An unlicensed link is not protected against
interference the same way but several of the 5.8 GHz options seem
plausible.

But I wouldn't touch 24 GHz. It's ground zero for rain fade, so long
hops there are only useful on sunny days, best in the desert. ;-) The
adjacent 23 GHz licensed band has less rain fade, though, and is worth
considering, and it should be duck soup on 18 GHz, though again
licensed
radios cost a bit more, especially the higher-powered or higher-speed
options. We're shooting a DragonWave 18 GHz hop about 8 miles across
Boston Hahbah and it's very solid, though extreme weather might cause
some dropouts.  We didn't see any during this past week's snow, though
signals faded a few dB during yesterday's rain.

> Gino A. Villarini
>
> g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>
<mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>>
>
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>
> 787.273.4143 
>
> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Christian Palecek
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 07, 2014 9:21 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios
>
> Seems like you are asking a lot of unlicensed, unless it is
completely
> quiet in your area...
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: Ian Framson
> Date:01/07/2014 6:10 PM (GMT-07:00)
> To: WISPA General List
> 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?
>



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Wireless Digest, Vol 24, Issue 16

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/8/2014 12:08 PM, Sean Heskett wrote:
> the part 15 PTP 24Ghz band is only from 24000-24200Mhz (200Mhz of 
> spectrum) i would assume that the doppler radar for cars is in another 
> slice of the 24Ghz spectrum.  as far as i know 24000-24200Mhz is for 
> part 15 PTP only.
>
> shouldn't be an issue.
>
> 2 cents
>
> -sean
>

I opened the rule book to see what might apply.  It turns out that field 
distubance sensor vehicular systems are allowed, per 15.252, to operate 
from 24000-29000, but with a maximum EIRP of only -41 dBm.  And 
"Operation shall occur only upon specific activation, such as upon 
starting the vehicle, changing gears, or engaging a turn signal."  So it 
won't run all the time.  This, then, probably isn't what they're using 
for two-vehicles-away collision avoidance radar. The rules in 15.253 for 
77 GHz systems are much looser, and that seems to be where the cars are 
headed.

-- 
  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

Re: [WISPA] HAM colo costs

[Fred Goldstein]

On 1/13/2014 11:28 AM, D. Ryan Spott wrote:
> For those of you that own towers or just know... What do HAM operators
> usually get charged for colocation?
>
No personal experience doing this, but as an old ham, I would be 
surprised if many hams paid anything!  One of the core skills of hamdom 
is talking your way onto the towers you need. ;-)  Or finding free 
sites.  Note that ham radio is prohibited from doing anything 
commercial, no revenue allowed at all.  (Ordering a pizza via autopatch 
was very controversial until the FCC clarified it. Of course cell phones 
made autopatches a lot less interesting.)  And it does provide public 
safety.  So ham repeaters often got free access. But tend not to go onto 
the big CMRS towers.

Not that I've had all that much contact with ham repeater owners outside 
of this area in the years since I edited the 1976 World Atlas of Repeaters.

-- 
  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

Re: [WISPA] IPhone email issues

[Fred Goldstein]

__
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



--
 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

[WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports

[Fred Goldstein]

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

Re: [WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/3/2014 6:30 PM, l...@mwtcorp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:36:02 -0500
>  Fred Goldstein  wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Hi Fred,
>
> I don't have that radio but I've had port problems from time to time.
>
> I noted that you said the switch showed the port as up but;
>
> On the Cisco Switch, if you do a 'show interface status' does the
> switch port show status of err-disabled?

Nothing that simple.  We're well aware of the errdisable states, and all 
of our 3550s have been configured to recover automatically from these 
errors.
We've also done the port config shutdown followed by no shutdown, which 
clears out everything with any port states, including BPDU guard port 
blocking.

Furthermore, nothing else seems to be able to communicate when plugged 
into one of those ports once killed.

We suspect there could be some kind of DC leakage from the PIDU onto the 
data port, and that the PoE voltage is on the higher side.

>
>> 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
>
> Larry Ash
> Network Administrator
> Mountain West Telephone
> 123 W 1st St.
> Casper, WY 82601
> Office 307 233-8387
>


-- 
  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

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/9/2014 9:42 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:


The use of compliance test is one of the reasons the FCC is clamping 
down on 5 ghz...




UBNT says that they got DFS2 working in 5.5.2, in 2012, so at least some 
radios, including the NSM5, are compliant.  Aren't these officially 
approved yet for the DFS bands?



Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143

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

*Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 6:56 PM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
frequencies?


DFS always comes second due to a longer certification process. It'll 
eventually come. Some manufacturers seem to get approved more quickly, 
but that could be timing of announcements and not the actual 
certification process.


-50 dBm? Where? Where? I do see where your address is and I am 
suspect. I am in suburban Chicago and I have at worst -70 noise floor. 
It's actually better in downtown Chicago at someone I know's apartment 
22 floors up (maybe low-E glass?). Something is very wrong if you have 
a -50 dB noise floor.




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



*From: *"Art Stephens" mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>>
*To: *wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*Sent: *Friday, January 31, 2014 10:29:09 AM
*Subject: *[WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 
frequencies?


Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle wisps out 
of these frequencies.


Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak from that 
platform.


First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which for 
about 40% of our equipment deployed would render them unusable since 
5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise levels in our area,


Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.

Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want to mess 
with it.


Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850 for USA.

Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy supports 
5170-5875.



Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which makes 
more money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless internet up for 
both wisps and consumers.


--

Arthur Stephens
Senior Networking Technician

Ptera Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837

ptera.com <http://ptera.com>

facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> | 
twitter.com/Ptera <http://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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



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



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

Blair Davis wrote,


I just went and read a bunch of  the comments on the proceeding...

>
> I didn't read them all, but I didn't find one in favor of the lower 
antenna gain...

>
> Has anyone else?


Motorola Solutions, makers of $6000 police walkie-talkies, explicitly 
supports the lower gain limit.


Cisco also supports the lower power rule. They only make local access 
points, after all, and are buddy-buddy with the Bells.


We should keep that in mind when making our purchase decisions.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/10/2014 9:42 AM, John Thomas wrote:


Interesting statement regarding Cisco.
They sell $3000 per unit mesh equipment whose range would be hurt if 
power limits were dropped.


John



But I don't think they do stuff with high-gain external antennas.

Peeking through Comments, Ericsson, btw, also supports the lower 
limits.  Again, a big supplier to the CMRS industry, so they probably 
see WISPs as competitors.


The WiFi Alliance also calls for the stricter gain limit, presumably 
because they only care about their indoor applications and want to limit 
competing users of the band.  I don't know what companies are in the 
Alliance.



Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com

On February 10, 2014 6:15:22 AM Fred Goldstein  
wrote:



Blair Davis wrote,

> I just went and read a bunch of the comments on the proceeding...
>
> I didn't read them all, but I didn't find one in favor of the lower 
antenna gain...

>
> Has anyone else?


Motorola Solutions, makers of $6000 police walkie-talkies, explicitly 
supports the lower gain limit.


Cisco also supports the lower power rule. They only make local access 
points, after all, and are buddy-buddy with the Bells.


We should keep that in mind when making our purchase decisions.



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/10/2014 10:21 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
So what about the cell companies that use 5GHz for a quick back haul 
while waiting for their license to come in?




Not the ones commenting in favor of the proposal.  I suppose the old 
Motorola might have understood that, but Cambium now owns the unlicensed 
stuff, while MotSol sells extravagantly expensive P25 radios.  And you 
don't want to know what their dispatch console (really a PC application) 
sells for.


To most of the WiFi crowd, unlicensed wireless is just indoors. That's 
all most consumers, at least in urban areas, see.  Of course they don't 
know that we're using those bands for urban public safety applications 
too (which is what I am up to).  The WiFi Alliance is obsessing about 
802.11ac, and wants four 160 MHz wide channels for indoor use.  So 
uniform rules make that easier, so that all of the channel is under one 
rule.  And to hell with everyone else.  After all, if you're out in the 
boonies at the end of a WISP link, you probably don't need 802.11ac in 
your home anyway.


Personally, I think that 11n is fast enough for normal WLAN use, and for 
those super-fast short haul indoor applications like HD video monitors, 
WiGig at 60G is more promising.  It's just a matter of getting the cost 
down and into mass production.  The new 60G rules are interesting too, 
for those shorter outdoor hops (<1 mile). The +82 dBm EIRP cap is quite 
generous.  But boy does 52dBi antenna alignment matter.


--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/11/2014 6:18 PM, Art Stephens wrote:

5265-5320
5500-5580
5660-5700
5735-5840

Are these not USA channels?
If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.



Yes, if your radio is type-approved for 15.407 with DFS.  Otherwise only 
the latter block, which can be type-approved under 15.247 and doesn't 
use DFS.  The first three blocks are UNII-2, which requires DFS. And of 
course the power limit there is lower.


AFAIK no MikroTik radios can legally use the DFS frequencies.  UBNT has 
it approved on at least some models as of AirOS 5.5.2.  I have however 
seen "professional installers" put up MikroTik radios on, uh, unapproved 
frequencies.  I don't know if any UBNT radios block operation even if 
they are up to rev.  Ticking off "obey regulatory rules" on a v5.3 radio 
certainly does narrow the frequency choices... anybody have an up-to-rev 
one handy?




On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>> wrote:



Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
frequencies?
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


I'm going to agree with others...

Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC, and it
sounds like you are definitely running outside the limits since
you are whining about the ability to run your radios in a mode
which seems to have no use than to exceed the limits.

I will also add that if you're running all your radios hotter than
they should be that your nose floor problem is most likely self
inflicted.   My experience over the years is that radios are
designed to run at a specific tx power and if you're exceeding it
you get a lot of out of channel bleed over.  Even if the radios
don't do this you are introducing far more rf than is likely
needed causing an overall rising of the noise floor.

Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.   We've just
all either dealt with an operator like you are now or have been an
operator like you are now.  And right now we're trying to gain
credibility with the FCC which is hard to do when some operators
are flagrantly breaking the rules.  Which makes us a bit grumpy.

I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help you
better understand what you are doing to yourself and help you
improve your operations which will in turn improve your quality of
service.   Heck, I'd drive over there for a weekend if my schedule
wasn't so packed.

In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let us
help you reap the rewards of a correctly and legally operating
network.

On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to muscle
wisps out of these frequencies.
Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only speak
from that platform.
First the latest firmware update removes compliance test which
for about 40% of our equipment deployed would render them
unusable since 5735 - 5840 runs at - 50dBm or higher noise
levels in our area,
Second is new product released only supports 5735 - 5840.
Seems like DFS is such a pain that manufacturers do not want
to mess with it.
Case in point the new NanoBeam M series only support 5725-5850
for USA.
Worldwide version which we are not allowed to buy or deploy
supports 5170-5875.

Seems the only alternative is to go with licensed P2MP which
makes more money for the FCC and drives the cost of wireless
internet up for both wisps and consumers.



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

an
Ptera Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837 
ptera.com <http://ptera.com>
facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> |
twitter.com/Ptera <http://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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


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




-- 
Arthur Stephens

Senior Networking Technician
Ptera Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837 
ptera.com <http://ptera.com>
facebook.com/PteraInc <http://facebook.com/PteraInc> |
twitter.com/Ptera <http://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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless




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



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/12/2014 6:04 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
What are you guys talking about?  A 30dB dish with a 0dB radio on it 
will easily go 4-5 miles.   Or put a 34dB dish on with a -4dB radio if 
you want more gain.




Yes, though urban clutter gets in our way.  With 5 GHz WLANs becoming 
more common, the noise level is higher than it used to be, though not as 
bad as on 5.8 where the cable company has decided to hang APs on their 
wires. :-(


FWIW I'm looking at the SNMP for one urban PTP400 link, presumably well 
situated, that is getting a 64QAM 7/8 signal at a distance of 1.4 miles 
(per the radios), with the TX power set to +4 dBm.  The PTPs were all 
upgraded to DFS.  Longer paths tend to converge at lower speeds (QPSK).  
But path by path conditions vary.



Sent from my iPad

On Feb 12, 2014, at 17:56, Fred Goldstein <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:



On 2/12/2014 5:23 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
Yea, but the power levels of some are not likely usable in an 
outdoor WISP environment.

A good explanation is at Wikipedia strange enough...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII

People running equipment in frequencies at a power level higher than 
intended is the issue.  Also, the 5470-5725 band requires DFS.




Actually, so does 5.25-5.35, as of 2004 or so.  It didn't originally, 
but when they added the 5.47-5.725 band, which needs DFS, they added 
the requirement to the original U-NII-2A band.  So

15.407(h)(2) Radar Detection Function of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS).
U-NII devices operating in the 5.25-5.35 GHz and5  
<http://www.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2013/5/47-5/section.pdf>.47-5  
<http://sujan.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2013/5/47-5/index.php>.725 GHz bands
shall employ a DFS radar detection mechanism to detect the presence of
radar systems and to avoid co-channel operation with radar systems.

The power level down there is adequate for some applications, like 
half-mile links.  Lots of old Motorola PTP-400s are legally pumping 
+5 to +9 dBm into panels... one urban path is working over 2 miles, 
though we're replacing it.




On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Art Stephens <mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:


5265-5320
5500-5580
5660-5700
5735-5840

Are these not USA channels?
If am wrong let  me know and I will change them.


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller
mailto:par...@cyberbroadband.net>>
wrote:


Forrest...what is your offlist email ?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)"
mailto:li...@packetflux.com>>
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700
frequencies?
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2014 11:53 AM


I'm going to agree with others...

Running outside legal limits doesn't look good to the FCC,
and it sounds like you are definitely running outside the
limits since you are whining about the ability to run your
radios in a mode which seems to have no use than to exceed
the limits.

I will also add that if you're running all your radios
hotter than they should be that your nose floor problem is
most likely self inflicted.   My experience over the years
is that radios are designed to run at a specific tx power
and if you're exceeding it you get a lot of out of channel
bleed over.  Even if the radios don't do this you are
introducing far more rf than is likely needed causing an
overall rising of the noise floor.

Please don't interpret everyone's ire incorrectly.   We've
just all either dealt with an operator like you are now or
have been an operator like you are now.  And right now we're
trying to gain credibility with the FCC which is hard to do
when some operators are flagrantly breaking the rules. 
Which makes us a bit grumpy.


I'm sure some of your neighbors out there would love to help
you better understand what you are doing to yourself and
help you improve your operations which will in turn improve
your quality of service.   Heck, I'd drive over there for a
weekend if my schedule wasn't so packed.

In any case please ask for help in appropriate spots and let
us help you reap the rewards of a correctly and legally
operating network.

On Feb 8, 2014 4:49 PM, "Art Stephens" mailto:asteph...@ptera.com>> wrote:

Recent events make me wonder if the FCC is trying to
muscle wisps out of these frequencies.
Since we are primarily Ubiquiti equipment I can only
speak from that platform.
  

Re: [WISPA] OT computer issue

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/21/2014 1:53 PM, Heith Petersen wrote:
I have a long standing customer that recently bought a PC from best 
buy. He kept telling me he would lose signal from his Air Router. So 
he came to my office and I set him up with a Pico station. Worked good 
at first then failure. So I talked with him at night. His PC couldn't 
see the Pico 10 foot away but his phone and laptop were on it all the 
way across the house. The room where this PC is in gets cold at times, 
but when he turns up the heat it starts to work. Geek Squad said there 
is nothing wrong with the box, but if he takes a hair dryer to his PC 
wireless starts to work after it warms up wireless starts to work. Bad 
Motherboard?


Does it have an external antenna?  Sometimes those connectors break; it 
looks like it's attached but it's not making electrical contact. I had 
that happen on a Buffalo client bridge.  Futzing with the antenna fixed 
the signal.  Since temperature can make things expand or contract, that 
could be where the loose connection is.


If it's a laptop with an internal antenna, never mind... but if it is 
the kind whose back can be unscrewed, WiFi is usually on an easily 
replaceable mPCI card.


--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: FW:2

[Fred Goldstein]

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


-- 
  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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: FW:

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/24/2014 6:03 PM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote:

This is the only cantenna that I've ever heard of
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-a-wifi-antenna-out-of-a-pringles-can-nb/
marlon


Well, among us real old timers, who remember Heathkits, they were 
probably the first to have a Cantenna.  Probably even a trademark. It 
was basically a gallon can filled with resistors and oil -- a one 
kilowatt peak power dummy load, used for tuning up big HF transmitters.


One hopes the current cantennas do not work that way.

*From:* heith petersen <mailto:wi...@mncomm.com>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:43 PM
*To:* WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*Subject:* [WISPA] Fw: FW:
I had a customer cancel our service a few weeks ago in a town an hour 
away from me. My billing lady got the impression that she was going to 
use her 4G service. She lives out of town a mile where we are the only 
WISP or service around, aside from satellite or cell service. Our 
equipment was laying by her house as she was away for the day when we 
were there, but stated that the new equipment was mounted in our old 
spot. So my tech took this picture and it said Cantenna on the bottom 
of it. Its not like the Cantenna I have seen in the past. I am real 
positive that I do not have another WISP in the area. Do some WISPS 
use these devices? The closest business is a John Deere dealership, 
and I am fairly certain their IT would not allow external usage of 
their network, and all of the houses in the area use our service. 
Anyways just curious if any one had any ideas of what they could be 
using this for. I have had other customers cheat WiFi from their 
neighbors with different Cantennas, but I would use a UBNT device to 
re-distribute the service, if that's whats going on

thanks
heith
*From:* 6052801...@mms.att.net <mailto:6052801...@mms.att.net>
*Sent:* Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:32 PM
*To:* he...@mncomm.com <mailto:he...@mncomm.com>
*Subject:* FW:


___
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



--
 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

Re: [WISPA] Tower Seminars?

[Fred Goldstein]

On 2/27/2014 7:59 PM, Tommie Dodd wrote:

Smoking those funny cigarettes!

Their goal would cost trillions and still not be free. It would need 
maintenance.


I am not shaking in my shoes just yet.


Isaac's a good guy, and he's not trying to put you all out of business.  
His model is essentially a coop, which is not uncommon in rural areas, 
but in his case it's more urban, sort of a coop for hipsters. ;-)  (He 
would NOT say that; I'm half-joking.)


While that model may or may not work out in most of the US, there are 
some successful Internet coops.  Guifi.net in Catalonia has >20k 
customers and is growing.  It's a mix of fiber and wireless. But pole 
attachments are a lot easier there than in the US.


--
 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

Re: [WISPA] ePMP PTP Results

[Fred Goldstein]

Very interesting, Chris, thanks  If the latency is going up to 200-400 
ms. and there are no other buffered network elements in the path, then 
it would seem to me that the ePMP has a very serious case of 
bufferbloat.  This is sometimes done because it makes the radio seem to 
perform better on artificial speed tests (as it did), to the severe 
detriment of real-world performance.  Nowadays, it's inexcusable.  Are 
there any settings to control buffer sizes?  Can someone find out from 
Cambium how much buffer is in there?


On 3/10/2014 3:26 AM, Chris Fabien wrote:
I spent some time tonight working with a couple ePMP radios on a test 
link and thought I'd share some results since I didn't get much 
feedback when I asked about this use case a couple weeks ago.


Setup
The link is a 7.5 mile link in a fairly noisy area, it has 2ft 
ubiquiti rocket dishes with RF Armor shield kits and formerly had 
normal Rocket M5 radios. Mikrotik CCR on one end and RB450 on other 
end. Evaluated latency and throughput between the two routers using 
the RouterOS bandwidth test. Used 20mhz channel throughout test.


On a noisy frequency where the link had been running, about -75 noise 
floor, the Ubnt link would pass around 40 mbps aggregate with low 
latency <10ms. The ePMP would pass about 70mbps with stable 18ms 
latency, but performance was inconsistent when changing direction 
(tx/rx/both) - almost like the noise was little higher in one 
direction and affecting link stability when I tried to run traffic in 
that direction. It seemed a little less stable overall on that freq 
than the Ubnt radios. Throughout the testing at this freq MCS varied 
9-13.


On a cleaner frequency (DFS band) I was able to achieve solid MCS15. 
The ePMP was able to deliver >100mbps aggregate throughput 
consistently, which I found very impressive. The most I usually see 
from normal Rockets in this type of test is usually around 70mbps.


The ePMP latency performance was a little unusual however. I noticed 
that when I saturated the link, latency jumped up to 200-400ms. If I 
restricted bandwidth to 90Mbps, I got nice consistent 18ms pings. When 
I run this type of test on ubnt I do not see a latency spike like 
this. Mikrotik radios running NV2 do increase at saturation, but only 
to around 100ms typically. So I would say ePMP performance is worse in 
this regard.


I also noticed some inconsistent performance with regard to the ping 
times expected for the fixed/flexible scheduling in the ePMP. When I 
was first testing, I ran flexible mode and saw pings generally 6-10ms. 
In fixed mode, I saw 17-18 ms which I think is what's expected. That 
was several days ago... tonight I was seeing the 17-18ms even though 
I'm set to flexible - almost like it's stuck. I am able to push nearly 
full speed in both directions so it is definatley not in fixed mode.


Hope this feedback is valuable for you all. I think these radios could 
be a very good option for low cost ptp radio, it would be nice if they 
could get the latency spike reduced.


Chris Fabien
LakeNet LLC


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



--
 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