Re: [WISPA] Operating as a non-profit
On 3/9/2017 4:30 PM, Charles Jones wrote: My local county government is considering becoming a WISP. I am interested in finding out if there any city or county governments operating a wireless internet in the United States. The Town of Warwick, Massachusetts has a municipal WISP. I've been working with them on upgrading their network, which began around 2009. The Town is quite remote and mountainous, has no DSL or cable, and not much cellular service, so the wireless network has a high take rate. Some commercial WISPs provide help on demand but the Town Administrator does most of the work himself and with the help of townspeople. I'm working with some other towns too but they're not up and running yet. -- 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] The future of 3.65 Band
On 3/6/2017 2:32 PM, William C Bardwell wrote: How does this affect new installations? You can still install new devices under your WBS (Part 90Z WBS) licenses. They just don't get "incumbent" status, wherein you can register a big protection zone in the SAS, when CBRS comes along. The licenses mostly expire April 17, 2020, so if you're not using something that looks like it will become a CBSD, then keep that in mind when evaluating the purchase. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Fred Goldstein <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 3/6/2017 12:48 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: How about towers that were installed previously? "Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Service" (3.65) licenses will remain in effect until 2020. If they expire before then, they can be renewed for up to that date. If they happened to be issued in the 2010-2013 time frame before the CBSD docket opened, then they get their full 10 years, which can make some of them run as late as March, 2023. For strange reasons I won't get into here, that can have unfortunate consequences, so there may be pressure on some WISPs to transition them anyway in 2020. Grandfathered devices fall into two categories. If you Registered them in ULS before 4/17/15 and had them in revenue service by 4/17/16, then they become Incumbent in CBRS and are entitled to very strong protection against other CBRS devices, on their current frequencies. That can have a 17 km radius, IIRC. If they were not registered, they get protection to 5.4 km. You can still add devices, but they are not treated the same as the ones that were registered. So if you had registered a device on that tower, it gets good protection until 2020. Once the GWBS licenses expire, the device either has to be re-approved as a CBSD (some will, some won't) or go off the air. I'd expect the LTE and some WiMax and other current clean-signal devices to get CBSD upgrades and approval; I don't expect any Wi-Fi-derivative devices to do so. Just speculating, though. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Fred Goldstein <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 3/6/2017 12:32 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: I've been off-line for a while. What is the latest set of decisions from the FCC with the 3.65 band? A second Report and Order was issued in May, 2016. Since then, the action has moved to WinnForum, which is producing the standards for how to actually use the band. That includes protocols for how a CBRS Device (CBSD) will communicate with a Spectrum Authorization System (SAS) and how the several SASs will communicate with each other. WISPA is represented there by myself and Richard Bernhardt. As of now, the first release of the protocols has been published, basically to allow vendors to start development, and we're working on further versions that are actually practical. Some guesses are that equipment using CBRS may become available, with FCC-approved SAS service, sometime around the end of the year. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interisle.net <http://interisle.net> Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 <tel:%28903%29%20455-5036> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> -- Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at"interisle.net <http://interisle.net> Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 <tel:%28617%29%20795-2701> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> -- Bois d'Arc Farm Cody Bardwell Crop Operations/IT 334-654-4539 _______ 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] The future of 3.65 Band
On 3/6/2017 12:48 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: How about towers that were installed previously? "Grandfathered Wireless Broadband Service" (3.65) licenses will remain in effect until 2020. If they expire before then, they can be renewed for up to that date. If they happened to be issued in the 2010-2013 time frame before the CBSD docket opened, then they get their full 10 years, which can make some of them run as late as March, 2023. For strange reasons I won't get into here, that can have unfortunate consequences, so there may be pressure on some WISPs to transition them anyway in 2020. Grandfathered devices fall into two categories. If you Registered them in ULS before 4/17/15 and had them in revenue service by 4/17/16, then they become Incumbent in CBRS and are entitled to very strong protection against other CBRS devices, on their current frequencies. That can have a 17 km radius, IIRC. If they were not registered, they get protection to 5.4 km. You can still add devices, but they are not treated the same as the ones that were registered. So if you had registered a device on that tower, it gets good protection until 2020. Once the GWBS licenses expire, the device either has to be re-approved as a CBSD (some will, some won't) or go off the air. I'd expect the LTE and some WiMax and other current clean-signal devices to get CBSD upgrades and approval; I don't expect any Wi-Fi-derivative devices to do so. Just speculating, though. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Fred Goldstein <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 3/6/2017 12:32 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: I've been off-line for a while. What is the latest set of decisions from the FCC with the 3.65 band? A second Report and Order was issued in May, 2016. Since then, the action has moved to WinnForum, which is producing the standards for how to actually use the band. That includes protocols for how a CBRS Device (CBSD) will communicate with a Spectrum Authorization System (SAS) and how the several SASs will communicate with each other. WISPA is represented there by myself and Richard Bernhardt. As of now, the first release of the protocols has been published, basically to allow vendors to start development, and we're working on further versions that are actually practical. Some guesses are that equipment using CBRS may become available, with FCC-approved SAS service, sometime around the end of the year. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interisle.net <http://interisle.net> Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- 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] The future of 3.65 Band
On 3/6/2017 12:32 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: I've been off-line for a while. What is the latest set of decisions from the FCC with the 3.65 band? A second Report and Order was issued in May, 2016. Since then, the action has moved to WinnForum, which is producing the standards for how to actually use the band. That includes protocols for how a CBRS Device (CBSD) will communicate with a Spectrum Authorization System (SAS) and how the several SASs will communicate with each other. WISPA is represented there by myself and Richard Bernhardt. As of now, the first release of the protocols has been published, basically to allow vendors to start development, and we're working on further versions that are actually practical. Some guesses are that equipment using CBRS may become available, with FCC-approved SAS service, sometime around the end of the year. -- 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] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/2/2017 1:43 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: We have a couple of the ignite switches. They work fine. Web interface very clunky but works. Thanks. That gives me some confidence. On Mar 2, 2017 1:41 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote: On 3/2/2017 11:27 AM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote: IgniteNet has some 24-port sfp switches. Havent tried them, don’t know how good they are. That's at the top of my list right now. It does everything I want and it's dirt cheap. But I don't know if anybody has actually tried them, so until we start hearing reports, it's literally very promising. Probably worth trying, if I get a chance. At that price ($500 for 24 ports) you can't go wrong. Bryce D NETAGO *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] *On Behalf Of *Chris Fabien *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:24 AM *To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch... On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: CRS series. As well. Depending on how dense you want. 229 bucks gets you a pair of 10 gig ports and 24 copper. ? I'm not looking for copper, except maybe a couple ports for the local connection; I'm looking for lots of SFPs, something that could be useful for a rural FTTP build, dropped into a pedestal somewhere in the middle of noplace, to feed a cluster of nearby buildings. MikroTik isn't in that space yet; CRS seems to be lots of copper. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at"interisle.net <http://interisle.net> Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 <tel:%28617%29%20795-2701> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ 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] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/2/2017 11:23 AM, Chris Fabien wrote:
There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch...
True, there's a 10-sfp CRS. Good price. Two downsides, though. One, 10
ports is still kind of small, like they're dipping their toes in the
market. Two, it's really a RouterOS router, not a switch. So it isn't
optimized for clean Layer 2 operation with VLANs, QoS, etc. That's not
MT's strength -- router folks don't appreciate Carrier Ethernet, which
is a lot newer than eye pee.
On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net
<mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
CRS series. As well. Depending on how dense you want. 229 bucks
gets you a pair of 10 gig ports and 24 copper. ?
I'm not looking for copper, except maybe a couple ports for the
local connection; I'm looking for lots of SFPs, something that
could be useful for a rural FTTP build, dropped into a pedestal
somewhere in the middle of noplace, to feed a cluster of nearby
buildings. MikroTik isn't in that space yet; CRS seems to be lots
of copper.
*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer – Consultant ***
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>
– MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>
Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:%28314%29%20735-0270>
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>
*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:37 PM
*To:* wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/1/2017 8:31 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
Planet mgsw-28240
Thanks for the model number. I had looked on Planet's web site
but there were no switches under "Braodband Communications"; that
model was in the "LAN switch" section. The product name then says
"Managed Metro Ethernet Switch" but it doesn't mention any MEF
compliance, the application page says "core/department network"
(though it uses SFPs, which is odd there), and its QoS features
don't seem up to MEF standards (three-color marking, etc.). So it
might work but I'm not sure if it really wants to be a carrier box.
What's the price? My recollection is that Planet was very very
reasonable.
The other one that looks really interesting is the new IgniteNet
Fusion Switch. The 20-SFP/4-SFP+ box is under $500, and seems to
be aimed at Active carrier deployments. Of course it's kinda new
so I don't know if anyone has it deployed yet. And I have no need
for higher-layer features in a switch; I'd rather let a real
router do that.
On Mar 1, 2017 7:07 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net
<mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
For a small outdoor or semi-outdoor (not a/c) deployment
of a couple of dozen ports or so, what's a good cheap
Active Ethernet switch? This would be to supplement
wireless and focus on business customers, so Active makes
more sense. Thanks.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interisle.net
<http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
<http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
<http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at"interisle.net <http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701 <tel:%28617%29%20795-2701>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
<http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at"interisle.net <http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consult
Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/2/2017 11:27 AM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote: IgniteNet has some 24-port sfp switches. Havent tried them, don’t know how good they are. That's at the top of my list right now. It does everything I want and it's dirt cheap. But I don't know if anybody has actually tried them, so until we start hearing reports, it's literally very promising. Probably worth trying, if I get a chance. At that price ($500 for 24 ports) you can't go wrong. Bryce D NETAGO *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Fabien *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:24 AM *To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch... On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: CRS series. As well. Depending on how dense you want. 229 bucks gets you a pair of 10 gig ports and 24 copper. ? I'm not looking for copper, except maybe a couple ports for the local connection; I'm looking for lots of SFPs, something that could be useful for a rural FTTP build, dropped into a pedestal somewhere in the middle of noplace, to feed a cluster of nearby buildings. MikroTik isn't in that space yet; CRS seems to be lots of copper. -- 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] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/2/2017 11:23 AM, Chris Fabien wrote:
There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch...
True, there's a 10-sfp CRS. Good price. Two downsides, though. One, 10
ports is still kind of small, like they're dipping their toes in the
market. Two, it's really a RouterOS router, not a switch. So it isn't
optimized for clean Layer 2 operation with VLANs, QoS, etc. That's not
MT's strength -- router folks don't appreciate Carrier Ethernet, which
is a lot newer than eye pee.
On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net
<mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
CRS series. As well. Depending on how dense you want. 229 bucks
gets you a pair of 10 gig ports and 24 copper. ?
I'm not looking for copper, except maybe a couple ports for the
local connection; I'm looking for lots of SFPs, something that
could be useful for a rural FTTP build, dropped into a pedestal
somewhere in the middle of noplace, to feed a cluster of nearby
buildings. MikroTik isn't in that space yet; CRS seems to be lots
of copper.
*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer – Consultant ***
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>
– MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>
Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:%28314%29%20735-0270>
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>
*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org
<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] *On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:37 PM
*To:* wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/1/2017 8:31 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
Planet mgsw-28240
Thanks for the model number. I had looked on Planet's web site
but there were no switches under "Braodband Communications"; that
model was in the "LAN switch" section. The product name then says
"Managed Metro Ethernet Switch" but it doesn't mention any MEF
compliance, the application page says "core/department network"
(though it uses SFPs, which is odd there), and its QoS features
don't seem up to MEF standards (three-color marking, etc.). So it
might work but I'm not sure if it really wants to be a carrier box.
What's the price? My recollection is that Planet was very very
reasonable.
The other one that looks really interesting is the new IgniteNet
Fusion Switch. The 20-SFP/4-SFP+ box is under $500, and seems to
be aimed at Active carrier deployments. Of course it's kinda new
so I don't know if anyone has it deployed yet. And I have no need
for higher-layer features in a switch; I'd rather let a real
router do that.
On Mar 1, 2017 7:07 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net
<mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
For a small outdoor or semi-outdoor (not a/c) deployment
of a couple of dozen ports or so, what's a good cheap
Active Ethernet switch? This would be to supplement
wireless and focus on business customers, so Active makes
more sense. Thanks.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interisle.net
<http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
<http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
<http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at"interisle.net <http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701 <tel:%28617%29%20795-2701>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
<http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless>
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at"interisle.net <http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consult
Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/2/2017 11:27 AM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote: IgniteNet has some 24-port sfp switches. Havent tried them, don’t know how good they are. That's at the top of my list right now. It does everything I want and it's dirt cheap. But I don't know if anybody has actually tried them, so until we start hearing reports, it's literally very promising. Probably worth trying, if I get a chance. At that price ($500 for 24 ports) you can't go wrong. Bryce D NETAGO *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Chris Fabien *Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:24 AM *To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch... On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: CRS series. As well. Depending on how dense you want. 229 bucks gets you a pair of 10 gig ports and 24 copper. ? I'm not looking for copper, except maybe a couple ports for the local connection; I'm looking for lots of SFPs, something that could be useful for a rural FTTP build, dropped into a pedestal somewhere in the middle of noplace, to feed a cluster of nearby buildings. MikroTik isn't in that space yet; CRS seems to be lots of copper. -- 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] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
CRS series. As well. Depending on how dense you want. 229 bucks gets
you a pair of 10 gig ports and 24 copper. ?
I'm not looking for copper, except maybe a couple ports for the local
connection; I'm looking for lots of SFPs, something that could be useful
for a rural FTTP build, dropped into a pedestal somewhere in the middle
of noplace, to feed a cluster of nearby buildings. MikroTik isn't in
that space yet; CRS seems to be lots of copper.
*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer – Consultant ***
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> –
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>
Radio Frequiency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>
*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
*On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:37 PM
*To:* wireless@wispa.org
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/1/2017 8:31 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
Planet mgsw-28240
Thanks for the model number. I had looked on Planet's web site but
there were no switches under "Braodband Communications"; that model
was in the "LAN switch" section. The product name then says "Managed
Metro Ethernet Switch" but it doesn't mention any MEF compliance, the
application page says "core/department network" (though it uses SFPs,
which is odd there), and its QoS features don't seem up to MEF
standards (three-color marking, etc.). So it might work but I'm not
sure if it really wants to be a carrier box.
What's the price? My recollection is that Planet was very very reasonable.
The other one that looks really interesting is the new IgniteNet
Fusion Switch. The 20-SFP/4-SFP+ box is under $500, and seems to be
aimed at Active carrier deployments. Of course it's kinda new so I
don't know if anyone has it deployed yet. And I have no need for
higher-layer features in a switch; I'd rather let a real router do that.
On Mar 1, 2017 7:07 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net
<mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
For a small outdoor or semi-outdoor (not a/c) deployment of a
couple of dozen ports or so, what's a good cheap Active
Ethernet switch? This would be to supplement wireless and
focus on business customers, so Active makes more sense. Thanks.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interisle.net
<http://interisle.net>
Interisle Consulting Group
+1 617 795 2701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701>
___
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
--
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
--
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] Active Ethernet switches
On 3/1/2017 8:31 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: Planet mgsw-28240 Thanks for the model number. I had looked on Planet's web site but there were no switches under "Braodband Communications"; that model was in the "LAN switch" section. The product name then says "Managed Metro Ethernet Switch" but it doesn't mention any MEF compliance, the application page says "core/department network" (though it uses SFPs, which is odd there), and its QoS features don't seem up to MEF standards (three-color marking, etc.). So it might work but I'm not sure if it really wants to be a carrier box. What's the price? My recollection is that Planet was very very reasonable. The other one that looks really interesting is the new IgniteNet Fusion Switch. The 20-SFP/4-SFP+ box is under $500, and seems to be aimed at Active carrier deployments. Of course it's kinda new so I don't know if anyone has it deployed yet. And I have no need for higher-layer features in a switch; I'd rather let a real router do that. On Mar 1, 2017 7:07 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: For a small outdoor or semi-outdoor (not a/c) deployment of a couple of dozen ports or so, what's a good cheap Active Ethernet switch? This would be to supplement wireless and focus on business customers, so Active makes more sense. Thanks. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interisle.net <http://interisle.net> Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 <tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ 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
[WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
For a small outdoor or semi-outdoor (not a/c) deployment of a couple of dozen ports or so, what's a good cheap Active Ethernet switch? This would be to supplement wireless and focus on business customers, so Active makes more sense. Thanks. -- 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] Static IP Pricing
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 <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
--
Simon Westlake
Email:simon@sonar.software <mailto:simon@sonar.software>
Phone: (702) 447-1247
---
Sonar Software Inc
The future of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software
___
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] What my spies are talking about
On 1/25/2017 11:58 AM, Marco Coelho wrote: Some of my friends at Verizon are talking a major shift in their Fiber Deployment. They have decided Fiber to the Home is non practical. They have adopted a fiber to the pedestal scheme with the last part of the connectivity being wireless to the home. Details on bands used have not been provided, but that is apparently their new model. They have sold their copper plant in Texas to Frontier as a part of this plan. Interesting times. That's right. FiOS is basically over, for new builds. Too expensive. It is mostly down to some FTTPR (fiber to the press release). They told Boston that they would build FiOS there. Lots of good press last year. But they actually had built out some neighborhoods about a decade ago, and simply not activated it. So now they're activating it and claiming it's a new build. But in the meantime they are planning massive densification of their wireless capacity, using street light poles, and basically just building fiber to the pole. They've told this to Wall Street; they haven't made it clear to the locals. While 4G meant LTE, 5G apparently just means "whatever we do after deploying LTE, because 5 comes after 4". ATT has this "IP transition" plan which doesn't have much to do with IP. It basically means they're abandoning most of the copper, updating some short loops to U-Verse, and putting in a lot more wireless to replace the copper. It's not fiber speed but it's cheap. Both AT and Verizon are very very interested in 3.5 GHz CBRS, as well as millimeter wave for where that works. You may recall that a few months ago, AT announced a plan to put millimeter wave backhaul on top of utility poles, beaming pole to pole (about half a mile), and using the electrical wires as a sort of waveguide to help the signal. -- 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] 3.65 Precedence
On 12/27/2016 4:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 12/27/16 13:35, Fred Goldstein wrote: Since you have the license, you are entitled to put up more devices, just not as Incumbent. So what you might want to do is pull the FCC's ULS records in that area to see what registered devices the existing WISPs have in the area you're looking to go into. It is possible that the WISPs in question didn't all bother to register everything they could have -- the number of registered devices in ULS strikes me as awfully low. Iowa, for instance, shows 60 licensees, some of whom register CPEs, some who don't. Or the WISP only registers the base stations, not the customers. How does the incumbent protection work in that case? Something like 4 miles out from the registered base station instead of the furthest CPE (since the CPEs were never registered)? Yes. The registered base station gets a protection zone that goes out about 5.3 km where there is only unregistered CPE, but if there's a registered CPE the protection zone in that direction can go as far as the CPE: "Specifically, under this approach, the Grandfathered Wireless Protection Zone around each eligible registered base station is defined by: (1) for sectors encompassing unregistered CPE, a 5.3 km radius sector from each registered base station based on the azimuth and beam width registered for that base station; and (2) for sectors encompassing registered CPE, a sector centered on each base station with the registered azimuth and beam width covering all registered subscriber stations within that sector." Note however that the registered CPE is still limited to 18 km, or the farthest-out registered CPE in that sector, whichever is closer. The diagram illustrating their August press release shows -Sector with unregistered CPE equipment receives protection only to 5.3 km radius -Sector without any registered or unregistered CPE equipment does not receive grandfathered protection -Sectors for protection of registered CPE equipment – angle determined by azimuth and beam width of registered base station, radius determined by location of furthest registered CPE, (normally not more than 18 km) There are two of the latter, with different protection radii based on where their CPEs are. BTW this is all in a Public Notice that is not a Rule per se. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-16-946A1_Rcd.pdf "D'oh, I should have registered that CPE!" :-) -- 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] 3.65 Precedence
On 12/27/2016 4:13 PM, Sam Morris wrote: On 12/27/2016 2:34 PM, Johnathan Penberthy wrote: I believe it is really difficult to get a 3.65 Ghz license now. Though 3.65 Ghz is basically treated as 5 Ghz, it can share the same space as another provider, though every link is registered with the FCC. We do have a nationwide 3.65 license. However we are only using it currently in one very small area in Iowa. There are other areas into which we're looking to put up service, but I know for a fact that in some of them there are existing WISPs that are using 3.65. I'm researching this for my boss to let him know that there may (or may not) be issues if we try to go into an area that already has a licensed 3.65 WISP using these frequencies there. I should've done a better job with the background on my original post. Since you have the license, you are entitled to put up more devices, just not as Incumbent. So what you might want to do is pull the FCC's ULS records in that area to see what registered devices the existing WISPs have in the area you're looking to go into. It is possible that the WISPs in question didn't all bother to register everything they could have -- the number of registered devices in ULS strikes me as awfully low. Iowa, for instance, shows 60 licensees, some of whom register CPEs, some who don't. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Sam Morris Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 1:26 PM To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: [WISPA] 3.65 Precedence I have a question to which I suspect I know the answer but wanted to defer to you smart guys. Let's say I'm opening up a new WISP and want to go into an area where there is an existing WISP already there. And let's say I want to use 3.65 GHz (non-LTE if that matters) gear in that area, but that the existing WISP already has 3.65 GHz gear up in the same area, and has it licensed properly with the FCC. I'm guessing that the existing WISP wins, and that I wouldn't be allowed to come in and put my gear up, potentially interfering with his existing operation. Is that correct or is it not as simple as this? -- 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] 3.65 Precedence
On 12/27/2016 3:25 PM, Sam Morris wrote: I have a question to which I suspect I know the answer but wanted to defer to you smart guys. Let's say I'm opening up a new WISP and want to go into an area where there is an existing WISP already there. And let's say I want to use 3.65 GHz (non-LTE if that matters) gear in that area, but that the existing WISP already has 3.65 GHz gear up in the same area, and has it licensed properly with the FCC. I'm guessing that the existing WISP wins, and that I wouldn't be allowed to come in and put my gear up, potentially interfering with his existing operation. Is that correct or is it not as simple as this? It's a little more complex. First off, you do need a license for now, and those aren't being given out, though there are uh strong rumors that they can be purchased from existing holders... they're non-exclusive, non-territorial licenses. Note that this is "for now". If someone has registered devices with the FCC before April, 2015, those devices are classified as Incumbent and are protected against interference except from other Incumbents. So a new device from a licensee who didn't register it on time can't interfere with it. But they can operate on a non-interfering basis -- the protected registration is to a specific device on a specific frequency at a specific location. If the Incumbent is using gear that is only approved for the less-restrictive 3650-3675 segment, then the 3675-3700 segment is vacant, provided the gear you use is approved for use up there. If two licensees operate in the same area and want to put up more radios and neither has priority over the other (by being registered on time), then the "sandbox clause" takes over: They are not protected against interference, but they are expected to cooperate with each other to try to minimize harm. This is different from 5 GHz or other unlicensed frequencies, where interference has to be essentially malicious (like the hotel Wi-Fi jammer) to get the FCC's attention. Existing 3650 (WBS) licenses can be renewed, but renewals all end in 2020; only 10-year licenses issued in a 2010-2013 window will last longer (until their 10 years is up). By then, CBRS rules will fully take over. Under CBRS rules, devices operate under one of three priorities: Incumbent, Priority Access License (PAL), or General Authorized Access (GAA). Incumbent includes those unexpired, registered WBS devices, as well as federal and satellite users. PAL will be the auctioned right to claim priority on a channel within a census tract, though the specific channel is not specified in the license. GAA is "licensed by rule", which is sort of unlicensed but has priority over actual unlicensed stuff, and a higher power limit. CBRS devices, called CBSDs, operate on a channel for which a Spectrum Authorization System (SAS) authorizes them. The 3550-3650 range has 10 10-MHz channels of which up to 7 can be claimed as PAL in a given location, while 3650-3700 is Incumbents (including WBS) /and/ GAA. GAA still has to protect /unregistered/ user devices connected to registered access points, but not nearly as far out as registered user devices get protection. The SAS is supposed to iron this out in real time when the CBSD requests a Grant to transmit. So once CBSDs are available and the band is really open, then you can just buy gear, sign it up with a SAS, and operate GAA. This should happen within a year. I'm one of WISPA's reps on the WinnForum Spectrum Sharing Committee, which is writing the rules and protocols for the SAS operations, and the process is moving reasonably quickly. Until then, you need to figure out if you can operate without interfering with an existing WBS user, and then you may be able to uh find a WBS license to operate under. Bear in mind that some WBS devices will qualify to become CBSDs, but others will not. The LTE stuff and some of the other high-grade stuff probably will. Other stuff (adapted Wi-Fi gear comes to mind) may have to sign off when the WBS licenses expire. Sorry to be a bit long-winded but it's a bit complicated, and I'm sure I left out some details that will matter... -- 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] 3.65 Ghz License
On 11/18/2016 1:23 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: Fred, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that 3.55 - 3.62 GHz (70 MHz) will be allocated to (7) 10 MHz PAL licenses, which will be auctioned per census tract. 3.62 - 3.70 GHz (80 MHz) will be allocated to GAA (General Authorized Access) with carve-outs for Incumbent Users such as the Satellite Earth Station Protection Zones and possibly Naval Radar entering an area. Not quite. The band will not be divided like that, and PALs will not be assigned specific frequencies like PCS. A PAL grants the right to create a PAL Protection Area (PPA) within the owned census tracts. The SAS assigns the PAL channel. A PA licensee who claims multiple PALs in a location will be assigned contiguous channels if possible, but they can be any of the 10 from 3550-3650. (3650 up is all GAA, after incumbents are protected.) First they protect satellites, and those can go as low as 3600. Plus any radar, of course, when/where it pops up in the coastal zone. So if radar reduces the availability of channels, PAL can be shifted away and thus bump GAA. Given how PALs work, a CBSD may be PAL in one census tract and GAA in another. A PPA goes down to the -96 dBm contour but only gets protection from noise above -80 dBm, so within its PPA it could have a -16 dBm SNR. A PA licensee could even try putting on a lot of stuff GAA and then only invoke the PAL on sectors where it seems needed. Having one PAL could be handy for that reason, and in rural areas it might be affordable. And to Josh's comment, I do still have about 30 license holders looking for a buyer. Contact me off list at rharn...@fibertothefarm.com if interested. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Director of WISP Markets Baicells Technologies, N.A. Mobile: +1.972.922.1443 Email: rick.harn...@baicells.com Follow us on Facebook for the latest news -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:11 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65 Ghz License On 11/18/2016 11:09 AM, Chadwick Wachs wrote: We are considering the purchase of a 3.65 license from an existing license holder who is not using it. We would be using it for a handful of backhauls to get off of crowded 5GHz space. However, I'm not sure if this is a smart move (buying a 3.65 license) and wanted some insight from those who have much more knowledge on where the FCC is going with this and what the likely value of a 3.65 license will be both today and next year (?) when the licenses are potentially opened back up. It looks like these licenses, at least in my area, are selling between $500 and $2000. It sounds like $1,000 tends to be about the sweet spot for the few that have sold around here. Existing 3.65 licenses all expire on the same date in 2020, *except* a few from late 2010- early 2013 that can expire as late as 2023. They allow you to add new radios under that license, but they are not protected (from other types of CBRS users) as "incumbent" under the now-operative Part 96 CBRS rules. Registration of devices that will qualify as "incumbent" closed in 2015. So you can operate new gear, but will have the same status as GAA (licensed-by-rule) users once CBRS gear has gone through the whole process to make the new band usable. There will be no Priority Access Licenses operating above 3.65; PAL is limited to 3.55 to 3.65. Of course 3.65 is still subject to satellite restrictions, if you're in one of the Protection Zones. Satellites are Incumbent, so on CBRS, they will get protection, and both GAA and PAL channels will be assigned around them. However, unlike today's 150km zones, CBRS will use the Spectrum Authorization System to compute the required protection. That will certainly mean less than 150 km. You can look in the FCC's ULS to see if anyone else is registered nearby. 3.65 is subject to a "sandbox clause", wherein users have to play nice with one another. It's unlikely that well-focused backhauls will run into a problem there, but you should know who's around. -- 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] 3.65 Ghz License
On 11/18/2016 11:09 AM, Chadwick Wachs wrote: We are considering the purchase of a 3.65 license from an existing license holder who is not using it. We would be using it for a handful of backhauls to get off of crowded 5GHz space. However, I'm not sure if this is a smart move (buying a 3.65 license) and wanted some insight from those who have much more knowledge on where the FCC is going with this and what the likely value of a 3.65 license will be both today and next year (?) when the licenses are potentially opened back up. It looks like these licenses, at least in my area, are selling between $500 and $2000. It sounds like $1,000 tends to be about the sweet spot for the few that have sold around here. Existing 3.65 licenses all expire on the same date in 2020, *except* a few from late 2010- early 2013 that can expire as late as 2023. They allow you to add new radios under that license, but they are not protected (from other types of CBRS users) as "incumbent" under the now-operative Part 96 CBRS rules. Registration of devices that will qualify as "incumbent" closed in 2015. So you can operate new gear, but will have the same status as GAA (licensed-by-rule) users once CBRS gear has gone through the whole process to make the new band usable. There will be no Priority Access Licenses operating above 3.65; PAL is limited to 3.55 to 3.65. Of course 3.65 is still subject to satellite restrictions, if you're in one of the Protection Zones. Satellites are Incumbent, so on CBRS, they will get protection, and both GAA and PAL channels will be assigned around them. However, unlike today's 150km zones, CBRS will use the Spectrum Authorization System to compute the required protection. That will certainly mean less than 150 km. You can look in the FCC's ULS to see if anyone else is registered nearby. 3.65 is subject to a "sandbox clause", wherein users have to play nice with one another. It's unlikely that well-focused backhauls will run into a problem there, but you should know who's around. -- 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] Switch causing packet loss?
On 11/7/2016 11:05 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: Sorry, correction layer 4. TCP slow start and window sizing. Allowing l2 to control your drops in a willy nilly fashion though is not a good idea... And random "pauses" on your backbone is also a poor idea. The idea is to smooth out the flow end to end; it's the big bursts that cause trouble. I'm of the opinion that WISP networks likely need to move to deep buffer data center switch designs, simply because of the number of variable speed links. No, I prefer the opposite. Bufferbloat is bad! The math shows that you basically don't need a buffer bigger than 10 packets or so. But with QoS classmarking, you may need multiple buffers. On Nov 7, 2016 9:53 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote: On 11/7/2016 10:40 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: Negative, layer2 flow control is an axe when you need a scalpel. Turn it off everywhere! Layer3 has automatic mechanisms to help handle bandwidth saturation, and packet loss is part of that process. Furthermore, proper ToS/DSCP queueing is equally important. Well, technically no, Layer 3 has NO mechanisms to deal with capacity. It was a known issue among the network working group members in 1973 and a known issue in 1974 when TCP v1 was written, but the team had turned over by 1978 when TCP/IPv4 came out, and that group forgot about it until 1986 when things fell apart. The temporary short-term not very good fix was in layer 4 (TCP Slow Start) and that doesn't even apply to all streaming, though many do cooperate. Of course it was "good enough", so 30 years later it is taken as gospel. TCP/IP is the /chabuduo /of protocol stacks. There could be issues with using flow control on the Ethernet port, but really flow control should have been part of every layer. Loss should generally be localized. On Nov 7, 2016 9:36 AM, "Judd Dare" <judd.d...@gmail.com <mailto:judd.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: So you're saying, make sure Flow Control is enabled on the ports? On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote: Microbursts causing buffer drops on egress ports to non-10G capable destinations. The switch wants to send data at a rate faster than the 1G devices can take it in, so it has to buffer it's data on those ports. Eventually those buffers fill up, and it taildrops traffic. TCP flow control takes over and eventually slows the transfer rate by reducing window size. It doesn't matter if its only sending 100M of data, its the RATE that it is sending the data. On Nov 7, 2016 8:58 AM, "TJ Trout" <t...@voltbb.com <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote: I have a 10G switch that is switching everything of mine at my NOC, including peers, router wan, router lan, uplink to tower, etc During peak traffic periods ~2gbps I'm seeing 1% packet loss and throughput will drop to 0 for just a second and resume normal for a few minutes before dropping back to zero for just a second. doesn't seem to be affecting the wan side of my router which connects to peers through the same switch. Doesn't happen during the day with low periods of traffic. I've enabled / disabled STP, Flow control. I believe I've isolated it to not be a single port, possibly have a bad switch but that seems hard to believe... Port isn't flapping, getting small amounts of fcs errors on receive and lots of length errors but i think those shouldn't be a problem? It's an IBM G8124 10G switch Ideas? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo
Re: [WISPA] Switch causing packet loss?
On 11/7/2016 10:40 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: Negative, layer2 flow control is an axe when you need a scalpel. Turn it off everywhere! Layer3 has automatic mechanisms to help handle bandwidth saturation, and packet loss is part of that process. Furthermore, proper ToS/DSCP queueing is equally important. Well, technically no, Layer 3 has NO mechanisms to deal with capacity. It was a known issue among the network working group members in 1973 and a known issue in 1974 when TCP v1 was written, but the team had turned over by 1978 when TCP/IPv4 came out, and that group forgot about it until 1986 when things fell apart. The temporary short-term not very good fix was in layer 4 (TCP Slow Start) and that doesn't even apply to all streaming, though many do cooperate. Of course it was "good enough", so 30 years later it is taken as gospel. TCP/IP is the /chabuduo /of protocol stacks. There could be issues with using flow control on the Ethernet port, but really flow control should have been part of every layer. Loss should generally be localized. On Nov 7, 2016 9:36 AM, "Judd Dare" <judd.d...@gmail.com <mailto:judd.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: So you're saying, make sure Flow Control is enabled on the ports? On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com>> wrote: Microbursts causing buffer drops on egress ports to non-10G capable destinations. The switch wants to send data at a rate faster than the 1G devices can take it in, so it has to buffer it's data on those ports. Eventually those buffers fill up, and it taildrops traffic. TCP flow control takes over and eventually slows the transfer rate by reducing window size. It doesn't matter if its only sending 100M of data, its the RATE that it is sending the data. On Nov 7, 2016 8:58 AM, "TJ Trout" <t...@voltbb.com <mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote: I have a 10G switch that is switching everything of mine at my NOC, including peers, router wan, router lan, uplink to tower, etc During peak traffic periods ~2gbps I'm seeing 1% packet loss and throughput will drop to 0 for just a second and resume normal for a few minutes before dropping back to zero for just a second. doesn't seem to be affecting the wan side of my router which connects to peers through the same switch. Doesn't happen during the day with low periods of traffic. I've enabled / disabled STP, Flow control. I believe I've isolated it to not be a single port, possibly have a bad switch but that seems hard to believe... Port isn't flapping, getting small amounts of fcs errors on receive and lots of length errors but i think those shouldn't be a problem? It's an IBM G8124 10G switch Ideas? ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ 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] IPV6 again?!?
hom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company." ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- 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] Anyone ever had your phone number spoofed?
On 10/21/2016 10:09 PM, Civano Coffee House wrote: signature And this is exactly why they continue to get away with this kind of fraud, the government is selective on who they will let report it. If you’re a person called and try to file a report they throw another obstacle in the way. The government wishes they could do something about number spoofing. There is a task force working on it, but it probably will only work on SIP networks, not the SS7-based PSTN, mainly because there's so little investment being made in maintaining that. But the design of the PSTN is not terribly secure. Caller ID is asserted by the originating device or carrier. An originating carrier could screen it to be sure that the number is one that the caller owns, but they never do, and you have to bear in mind that incoming and outgoing calls may go through different carriers, so the outgoing carrier has no way of knowing your incoming numbers. Even if the originating carrier verified the number, calls are sometimes passed through multiple carriers between origination and destination. More room for shenanigans... you can't really tell who the originating carrier is, especially if it arrives VoIP. The calling party name is a totally different beast. This is NOT passed across the PSTN. In the FCC's infinite wisdom a couple of decades ago, they let the network pass the number while the terminating carrier, who sells Caller ID with Name as a premium service to its own customer, looks up the name in a table. They can of course query the originating carrier's Line Information Database to get the canonical result, but carriers charge huge fees for that. So instead you have all sorts of weird caches of names lying around, some years old, and your carrier may thus be using old, or wrong, information. It's all very freedom-y. *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Martha Huizenga *Sent:* Friday, October 21, 2016 10:13 AM *To:* WISPA <memb...@wispa.org>; WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> *Subject:* [WISPA] Anyone ever had your phone number spoofed? Yesterday we started receiving a large number of calls saying that we were calling them and they got disconnected or talked to someone who tried to scam them (yesterdays's scam was a government grant sent to their nearest western union). We called our provider (RingCentral) and they said our phone number had been spoofed. Anyone ever had their number spoofed? How long did it last? Did you have to change your phone number? This is the second day in a row. We changed our voice mail letting people know and asking them to call the FCC - we called the FCC yesterday and reported it, but they need the people receiving the calls to call and complain. any thoughts appreciated. Martha -- - Martha Huizenga Partner 202-546-5898 DC Access */Friendly, Local, Affordable, Internet! Connecting the Capitol Hill Community Join us on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/DCAccess> or follow us on Twitter <http://www.twitter.com/dcaccess>/* ___ 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] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's
On 10/21/2016 9:52 PM, Tim Way wrote: 2k12r2 ha DHCP service, Linux clustering or simple dual scopes! That still requires connectivity from the device to the DHCP server. Static management addresses let you associate a piece of hardware, a physical thing, with that 32-bit name and not worry about it. On Oct 21, 2016 6:16 PM, "Adair Winter" <ada...@amarillowireless.net <mailto:ada...@amarillowireless.net>> wrote: What happens when DHCP quits and you can't manage anything? Powercode assigns the next available management IP for whatever tower/range and we statically assign to the CPE On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ian Fraser <ian_fra...@gozoom.ca <mailto:ian_fra...@gozoom.ca>> wrote: Not sure how static would be safer than DHCP for CPE mgmt? Ian Original message From: Fred Goldstein <f...@interisle.net <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> Date:10-21-2016 6:31 PM (GMT-05:00) To: wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> Cc: Subject: Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's On 10/21/2016 5:55 PM, Ian Fraser wrote: > > > PPPOE for Res traffic. VLAN's for Biz. Public IP's are statically > assigned. DHCP for CPE's MgMt IP assignment. PPPOE session and CPE's > connection to the AP authenticated by Radius. Radius Accounting is > used for traffic billing and session info. > Wouldn't it be safer to use static IPs for CPE management? I'd do that, private IPs of course on a management VLAN not visible to customers. > Per site: 2 VLANs for MgMt (1 for Tower/AP/UPS etc and 1 for CPEs) and > 1 VLAN per AP for PPPOE or a dedicated VLAN per Biz. AP's are bridged > for CPE's PPPOE to NAS. uPnP enabled CPEs. Cust Routers are not > allowed to initiate PPPOE. PPPOE NAS's are mostly colocated tower > sites so that backhauls can see QOS markers on traffic and not just a > Tunnel. > > BGP Advertises IP range per Fibre POP and feeds 0.0.0.0/0 <http://0.0.0.0/0> into OSPF > for redistributing routes inside the AS. Infrastructure MgMt is on > RFC1918 and customers are Public IPs. Firewall rules on > NAS/Router/CPE prevent Customer IP's from reaching MgMt IP's. > Nice if you have enough public IPs for customers. I'm not sure BGP and PPPOE are necessarily the easiest protocols for this purpose, but definitely do use the VLANs and keep the routing out of the radios. > Mikrotik for all routing. Netonix for most switching. Mikrotik for > most PtMP (probably uncommon) but LTE is Telrad in areas where it is > deployed, which skews the above architecture a bit :( LTE is not for > newbies though mind you maybe Mikrotik isn't either lol... but in > 13 years I've never been floored by a virus "infecting" my gear ;-) > You can't do 5 GHz with MikroTik in the US; they don't have valid FCC approval any more. Not that they admit it, but the US isn't a big market for them. The wireless design itself has to be based on the local terrain, clutter (trees, etc.), subscriber density, and other conditions. You do want a nice SNMP monitoring system that allows you to pull whatever parameters you want out of the MIB, not one that charges per line item (like PRTG) or that only pulls a few selected details. I do enjoy the detail I can get out of InterMapper, for instance. Where are you (or your planned network) located, Jordan? > Cheers, > > Ian > > >> On 10/21/2016 3:07 PM, Jordan de Geus wrote: >>> Hey guys, >>> >>> I'm very new to the WISP industry and I've been curious to know how >>> people are designing their WISP networks. >>> >>> Are you creating VLAN's for each connection point? So your backhauls >>> are all in one VLAN, while all AP to client connections are in >>> another VLAN? >>> >>> I had been thinking about how the above VLAN based design would be, >>> in terms of security, and I realized that if all CPE's were in one >>> VLAN together, wouldn't they be able to cross communicate? So an AP >>> with 30
Re: [WISPA] Network/infrastructure design for WISP's
On 10/21/2016 5:55 PM, Ian Fraser wrote: PPPOE for Res traffic. VLAN's for Biz. Public IP's are statically assigned. DHCP for CPE's MgMt IP assignment. PPPOE session and CPE's connection to the AP authenticated by Radius. Radius Accounting is used for traffic billing and session info. Wouldn't it be safer to use static IPs for CPE management? I'd do that, private IPs of course on a management VLAN not visible to customers. Per site: 2 VLANs for MgMt (1 for Tower/AP/UPS etc and 1 for CPEs) and 1 VLAN per AP for PPPOE or a dedicated VLAN per Biz. AP's are bridged for CPE's PPPOE to NAS. uPnP enabled CPEs. Cust Routers are not allowed to initiate PPPOE. PPPOE NAS's are mostly colocated tower sites so that backhauls can see QOS markers on traffic and not just a Tunnel. BGP Advertises IP range per Fibre POP and feeds 0.0.0.0/0 into OSPF for redistributing routes inside the AS. Infrastructure MgMt is on RFC1918 and customers are Public IPs. Firewall rules on NAS/Router/CPE prevent Customer IP's from reaching MgMt IP's. Nice if you have enough public IPs for customers. I'm not sure BGP and PPPOE are necessarily the easiest protocols for this purpose, but definitely do use the VLANs and keep the routing out of the radios. Mikrotik for all routing. Netonix for most switching. Mikrotik for most PtMP (probably uncommon) but LTE is Telrad in areas where it is deployed, which skews the above architecture a bit :( LTE is not for newbies though mind you maybe Mikrotik isn't either lol... but in 13 years I've never been floored by a virus "infecting" my gear ;-) You can't do 5 GHz with MikroTik in the US; they don't have valid FCC approval any more. Not that they admit it, but the US isn't a big market for them. The wireless design itself has to be based on the local terrain, clutter (trees, etc.), subscriber density, and other conditions. You do want a nice SNMP monitoring system that allows you to pull whatever parameters you want out of the MIB, not one that charges per line item (like PRTG) or that only pulls a few selected details. I do enjoy the detail I can get out of InterMapper, for instance. Where are you (or your planned network) located, Jordan? Cheers, Ian On 10/21/2016 3:07 PM, Jordan de Geus wrote: Hey guys, I'm very new to the WISP industry and I've been curious to know how people are designing their WISP networks. Are you creating VLAN's for each connection point? So your backhauls are all in one VLAN, while all AP to client connections are in another VLAN? I had been thinking about how the above VLAN based design would be, in terms of security, and I realized that if all CPE's were in one VLAN together, wouldn't they be able to cross communicate? So an AP with 30 clients operating in VLANX, would essentially be able to communicate to each other, bring security as a major issue. I was thinking that you'd be able to do VLAN's for each customer, but doing a PTMP setup for residential purposes, I feel like the system would be quite bogged down with that amount of vlans? How are you authenticating and issuing IP's to clients? Are you doing PPPOE or DHCP? Is everything just in routed tables? What sort of hardware are you using for your network design and management? Kind Regards, Jordan -- 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] ePMP vs Mimosa for 50Mbps+ Speed plans.
On 10/6/2016 6:26 PM, Civano Coffee House wrote: Even without TDMA on a Mimosa A5-14, and Cambium Force180 and Force 200 CPE’s we have 23 customers with 100Mbit plans and have not maxed it out, Customers don’t use the full bandwidth, but we were happy to sell it to them. They do a few speed tests and see the 100Mbits and are happy. We are also waiting for TDMA to start migrating over to the C5 CPE platform, till then everyone is happy. Do they not have any TDMA (what AirMax is), or just not synchronous TDMA (GPS)? Absent TDMA, it becomes Wi-Fi, and all those hidden transmitters get in each others' way. *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael W Rhone II *Sent:* Thursday, October 06, 2016 2:22 PM *To:* wireless@wispa.org *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] ePMP vs Mimosa for 50Mbps+ Speed plans. We sell 35mbs plans on M5 gear on a 20mhz channel. UBNT AC gear can easily do 50mbs plans on a 20mhz channel. If you keep everyone fully modulated, you could probably get away with a few 100mbs plans per sector. If you can get away with 40mhz channels, you can really move up the plan speeds. We are also moving away from sectors and using RF Elements Horn antennas. We don't use epmp, so I'll let someone else comment on that. AFAIK though, Mimosa doesn't have TDMA working yet, so I can't recommend that until its ready. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. On 10/6/16 4:03 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote: We are doing 25Mbps plans (slowest) up to 100 Mbps plans using ePMP. Feel free to contact me off list. Chad On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Chris Fabien <ch...@lakenetmi.com <mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote: We have deployed 5Ghz ePMP on some remote sites with omni antennas and been happy overall. I am considering what our next step should be for our major 5Ghz sites. These are ubnt M5 gear currently selling up to 15 Mbps. Most of these towers will be fiber fed soon and I would like to start offering at least 25-50 meg speed plans. I think either ePMP or Mimosa should be capable... I am interested to hear reports from operators using either platform to offer these or higher speeds. Mimosa seems a bit of an immature product line with maybe higher capacity, ePMP seems mature and stable. Chris Fabien LakeNet LLC ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- AU Wireless (Golden Wireless) www.AUwireless.net <http://www.AUwireless.net> _Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/AU-Wireless-1630781100539377/>_ | @auwirelessnet <https://twitter.com/AUWirelessNet> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- <http://www.thewireless.ninja/> Authorized Ubiquiti Training Partner On-Location airMax, UniFi, and EdgeMax Training <http://www.thewireless.ninja> ___ 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] WISPAPALOOZA
On 9/29/2016 4:21 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: And you still haven't offered Mimosas, Jaime... I feel like you're missing an opportunity here. You must have missed, or been late for, the WISPAPALOOZA 2014 product announcement. On 9/29/16 4:20 PM, Jaime Fink wrote: Mimosa's open event where we'll cover all our new things and talk multipoint will be Monday 2-4PM at the Rio, Palma Room, no RSVP needed. Booze is officially separate from business ;) Jaime On Sep 29, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matt Hoppes <mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote: Ok. That as one way to ask the question. Lol On Sep 29, 2016, at 15:30, Gino Villarini <g...@aeronetpr.com <mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>> wrote: Wheres the booze From: <wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>> on behalf of Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> *//* */Gino Villarini/* President Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> Date: Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 3:25 PM To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPAPALOOZA Those are just training, I think he's after the typical Ubnt Cambium and Mimosa announcement deals. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Trina Coffey <tr...@wispa.org <mailto:tr...@wispa.org>> wrote: All of the events that I was made aware of are listed here: http://www.wispa.org/Events/WISPAPALOOZA/wp16-collocated-training <http://www.wispa.org/Events/WISPAPALOOZA/wp16-collocated-training> Respectfully, Trina Coffey Director of Operations WISPA 260-622-5775 direct 866-317-2851 ext. 102 <tel:866-317-2851%20ext.%20102> (US only) 530-227-6696 cell www.wispa.org <http://www.wispa.org> Come see us at WISPAPALOOZA!! -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On Behalf Of Matt Hoppes Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 2:37 PM To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPAPALOOZA Is there a list of events happening during the show? Like I believe Monday several vendors have some events going on, or the events happening in the evening. Trying to plan my week. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless> ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless <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 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] Intermapper Probes
On 9/12/2016 4:11 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: Looking to get some probes developed, Cambim 450 Epmp AF24 AF5x Mimosa We have AF24 and Mimosa probes (we designed our own). I suspect AF5x uses the same probe. We have Motorola PTP 400 and 600 probes but they're probably too old for the Cambium 650. Let me see if I can get them to you. -- 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] Need a ~60ft pole to mount a 2ft dish on
On 9/12/2016 2:38 PM, Nick Bright wrote: On 9/8/2016 10:16 AM, Dan Petermann wrote: http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/product_details.aspx?id=49277 Any idea how much these usually cost? I looked to find it for sale. I found a shorter version of that (the Ballast Pole -- a monopole with an above-ground mat base poured on site into a provided mold) for something like $8k, so a 60' one is likely to cost more. That's just for the kit; you provide the site work and aggregate fill. I still vote for the wood utility pole. -- 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] Need a ~60ft pole to mount a 2ft dish on
On 9/7/2016 7:21 PM, Scott Carullo wrote: Whats the best option? One economical approach might be to get a 75' or 80' wood utility pole. An 80' pole can be set 15' deep (a bit deeper in soft soil, I'd guess) and thus provide 65' of space (maybe 60' if set deep). If it can hold a pole pig transformer, it can hold a 2' dish and more. (I plan to do a lot of these soon.) Total cost should be in the $4k range. It's a poor man's freestanding tower. -- 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] Big Guns align behind 3.5 ghz CBRS LTE
On 8/25/2016 9:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Big wireless also has BRS\EBS, WCS and whatever iDen used.
Yes, add that to the spectrum list. At least in Sprint's case. They own
most of the BRS/EBS licenses and leases, and are using it for their LTE.
A few others are there too, on a more local basis. Nextel had some iDEN
frequencies in the 900 MHz range and that too is in Sprint's network
now, but those were IIRC only 3 MHz channels, so mostly good for voice
coverage. Sprint still can't hold a candle to the big two in that
regard, though, and even T-M is ahead now with its 700 MHz coverage.
AT holds a lot of the 2300 MHz WCS licenses. I think one of the
Nextwaves held some and was leasing them to WISPs, but AT bought them.
Verizon of course had bought a previous Nextwave.
*From: *"Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net>
*To: *wireless@wispa.org
*Sent: *Thursday, August 25, 2016 8:42:46 AM
*Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Big Guns align behind 3.5 ghz CBRS LTE
We are involved in this band, at WinnForum. That's where the standards
are being written. The FCC announced the rules last year and did a
minor update of them earlier this year. Now we're working with
WinnForum to fix an oversight that makes the band pretty much unusable
by rural WISPs. ("What, your installers don't carry a sat phone?") We
expect to make progress, though.
The name Citizens Broadband Radio Service is really unfortunate. Press
articles about the CBRS Alliance are making jokes about
"breaker-breaker good buddy", and the article that Gino pointed to had
a picture of a President Washington CB transceiver. This band has
nothing to do with CB and doesn't work a bit like it. The only thing
close to CB is that its rules were assigned to a new Part 96, while CB
itself is Part 95 of 47 C.F.R. (the FCC rules). It probably should
have gotten a Part number in the 20s, though, down by cellular.
The FCC rules are by design technology-agnostic. The CBRS alliance
looks like a pro-LTE group. LTE is going to be the dominant
technology, and some companies think LTE will totally dominate the
band, but some of our vendor members have other uses for CBRS.
Existing 3650-3700 MHz is being merged into CBRS, of course, which is
what led to its being frozen in April 2015. Some WiMAX equipment could
be upgraded, for instance, to be compliant. WinnForum has a
Coexistence Task Group working on ways to mitigate interference
between dissimilar technologies.
The big carriers are looking at this for "small cells", essentially a
way to add spectrum capacity relatively cheaply so they can sell more
gigabytes of cat videos to smartphone users. Assuming we fix the
glitch in the rules, this will also be a useful WISP band, especially
in rural areas where the big boys don't need additional capacity.
After all, they already have 700 MHz, 800 MHz (original cellular A),
1900 MHz PCS, 1700 MHz AWS-1, and soon 600 MHz if the Incentive
Auction now under way is successful at buying out TV licenses. In the
city, all those cat videos are clogging existing spectrum, but
elsewhere CBRS is likely to be their fourth or fifth choice.
Licensing is complex. As you probably know, there are "incumbents"
(includes currently-registered 3650 licenses), PALs, and GAA
("licensed by right" as a variant of unlicensed). PAL merely grants
priority over GAA in the Spectrum Authorization System; it doesn't
block off any frequencies. Rumor has it that one of the very big
national carriers plans to go all-GAA themselves. Since the license
area is a Census Tract, a PAL might be quite affordable for a rural
WISP, if you think it's worthwhile.
But making matters more complex is the need to protect fixed satellite
earth stations, as low as 3600 MHz. Plus the need to protect naval
radar, the band's primary owner. So the SASs will require radar
detectors (ESC) in the field before anyone can use the band outdoors
within about a hundred miles of the coasts. A ship pulling in to port
might then force frequency changes. So the actual use of this shared
spectrum is going to be a complex multivariate problem.
On 8/25/2016 8:19 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
Thanks for posting this Gino,
I read the article and thought it was interesting. My only concern
is there will be that many more bidders in the PAL license area.
I think that this alliance has the capability to be a very good
thing for wisps. But it will make us have to spend the money to
actually purchase our spectrum. This is a new thought for many of
us.
These 3 main players are already in the LTE market with Intel,
Qualcomm, and Nokia already having silicon that can do the CRBS
band. A stable uniform platform may arise from this that may
interoperate between carriers and may give WISPs the first time
chance to p
Re: [WISPA] Big Guns align behind 3.5 ghz CBRS LTE
We are involved in this band, at WinnForum. That's where the standards
are being written. The FCC announced the rules last year and did a minor
update of them earlier this year. Now we're working with WinnForum to
fix an oversight that makes the band pretty much unusable by rural
WISPs. ("What, your installers don't carry a sat phone?") We expect to
make progress, though.
The name Citizens Broadband Radio Service is really unfortunate. Press
articles about the CBRS Alliance are making jokes about "breaker-breaker
good buddy", and the article that Gino pointed to had a picture of a
President Washington CB transceiver. This band has nothing to do with CB
and doesn't work a bit like it. The only thing close to CB is that its
rules were assigned to a new Part 96, while CB itself is Part 95 of 47
C.F.R. (the FCC rules). It probably should have gotten a Part number in
the 20s, though, down by cellular.
The FCC rules are by design technology-agnostic. The CBRS alliance looks
like a pro-LTE group. LTE is going to be the dominant technology, and
some companies think LTE will totally dominate the band, but some of our
vendor members have other uses for CBRS. Existing 3650-3700 MHz is being
merged into CBRS, of course, which is what led to its being frozen in
April 2015. Some WiMAX equipment could be upgraded, for instance, to be
compliant. WinnForum has a Coexistence Task Group working on ways to
mitigate interference between dissimilar technologies.
The big carriers are looking at this for "small cells", essentially a
way to add spectrum capacity relatively cheaply so they can sell more
gigabytes of cat videos to smartphone users. Assuming we fix the glitch
in the rules, this will also be a useful WISP band, especially in rural
areas where the big boys don't need additional capacity. After all, they
already have 700 MHz, 800 MHz (original cellular A), 1900 MHz PCS,
1700 MHz AWS-1, and soon 600 MHz if the Incentive Auction now under way
is successful at buying out TV licenses. In the city, all those cat
videos are clogging existing spectrum, but elsewhere CBRS is likely to
be their fourth or fifth choice.
Licensing is complex. As you probably know, there are "incumbents"
(includes currently-registered 3650 licenses), PALs, and GAA ("licensed
by right" as a variant of unlicensed). PAL merely grants priority over
GAA in the Spectrum Authorization System; it doesn't block off any
frequencies. Rumor has it that one of the very big national carriers
plans to go all-GAA themselves. Since the license area is a Census
Tract, a PAL might be quite affordable for a rural WISP, if you think
it's worthwhile.
But making matters more complex is the need to protect fixed satellite
earth stations, as low as 3600 MHz. Plus the need to protect naval
radar, the band's primary owner. So the SASs will require radar
detectors (ESC) in the field before anyone can use the band outdoors
within about a hundred miles of the coasts. A ship pulling in to port
might then force frequency changes. So the actual use of this shared
spectrum is going to be a complex multivariate problem.
On 8/25/2016 8:19 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
Thanks for posting this Gino,
I read the article and thought it was interesting. My only concern is
there will be that many more bidders in the PAL license area. I think
that this alliance has the capability to be a very good thing for
wisps. But it will make us have to spend the money to actually
purchase our spectrum. This is a new thought for many of us.
These 3 main players are already in the LTE market with Intel,
Qualcomm, and Nokia already having silicon that can do the CRBS band.
A stable uniform platform may arise from this that may interoperate
between carriers and may give WISPs the first time chance to partner
with celcos with interconnect agreements. Our networks will have to
be able to handle it but I think there is more revenue possible, at
least for Rural WISPs. Companies in very metro areas are probably out
of luck.
The thought of having a large amount of equipment that all uses the
same spec, the same timing mechanisms with GPS sync, allows us to buy
into the technology and share the spectrum. Maybe we can make this
band work the way that we wished all the bands worked and interoperate
with everyone who follows the spec and not be fighting the big boys
all the time….
*Steve Barnes*
Wireless Operations Manager
*PCSWIN.COM*
*NLBC.COM*
*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
*On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:22 PM
*To:* WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org>
*Subject:* [WISPA] Big Guns align behind 3.5 ghz CBRS LTE
http://telecoms.com/475034/google-intel-nokia-qualcomm-and-other-form-3-5-ghz-alliance/
/*Gino Villarini*/
President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
--
Re: [WISPA] Baicells - who's deployed it?
On 6/19/2016 10:09 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote: > I believe that Patrick has said as much (not SDR) on the ISP Radio interview > with him back in April. Would certainly go a ways to explaining how they > managed to offer it for basically 1/3rd the price of competing gear. I only know what's public including what was said on the very good WISP Brothers interview from WISPAmerica. What I got from that is that Baicells uses Qualcomm chips. So just as Ubiquiti used Atheros chips to make decent cheap radios, Baicells uses Qualcomm's chips rather than building everything from scratch. I'm not sure if this applies to all of their eNBs or just the little one, though. And whether the chip counts as SDR is itself an interesting question. > -- Nathan > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of > Matt Hoppes [mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 2:19 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Baicells - who's deployed it? > > I think Adair said he has? > > Who says the baicells isn't SDR? I don't know. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Baicells - who's deployed it?
On 6/19/2016 10:09 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote: > I believe that Patrick has said as much (not SDR) on the ISP Radio interview > with him back in April. Would certainly go a ways to explaining how they > managed to offer it for basically 1/3rd the price of competing gear. I only know what's public including what was said on the very good WISP Brothers interview from WISPAmerica. What I got from that is that Baicells uses Qualcomm chips. So just as Ubiquiti used Atheros chips to make decent cheap radios, Baicells uses Qualcomm's chips rather than building everything from scratch. I'm not sure if this applies to all of their eNBs or just the little one, though. And whether the chip counts as SDR is itself an interesting question. > -- Nathan > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of > Matt Hoppes [mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 2:19 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Baicells - who's deployed it? > > I think Adair said he has? > > Who says the baicells isn't SDR? I don't know. -- Fred Goldsteink1iof...@interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik - MEF
-9097-3F468F84263A http://www.youtube.com/user/SAFTehnika SAF Tehnika JSC www.saftehnika.com *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini *Sent:* Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:23 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik - MEF Not the same when you are a router manufacturer… Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr *From: *Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net *Reply-To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Date: *Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik - MEF How many WISPs have heard of MEF or CE or even VPLS? So... have you asked for it yet? :-p supp...@mikrotik.com mailto:supp...@mikrotik.com - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 30, 2014 4:00:41 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik - MEF They are a router vendor and didn't knew about MEF...??? Are you f...kng kidding me??? Sheesh! They do live in a bubble...I guess that's one of the reasons they have not grown out of the wisp market Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Dec 30, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: They had never heard of it before and I'm the only one that has ever brought it up to them. Trying to convince them now to do the work. At the last US MUM, they were saying to e-mail them with requests and enhancements. Since they said no one has before, I invite you all to. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:39:20 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik - MEF And they agreed? Gino A. Villarini @gvillarini On Dec 30, 2014, at 2:17 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: E-mail Mikrotik support and ask them to obtain MEF certification. For those that don't know what MEF is, it's what the big boys have for all of the gear they use. http://metroethernetforum.org/certification/equipment-certification-overview http://metroethernetforum.org/carrier-ethernet/technical-specifications Y.1731 is a big thing to my prospective clients to document the performance of circuits I provide. https://metroethernetforum.org/Assets/Presentation/Overview_of_the_Work_of_the_MEF_20130610.pptx - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ___ 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 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 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] Mikrotik - MEF
On 12/30/2014 5:05 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: How many WISPs have heard of MEF or CE or even VPLS? So... have you asked for it yet? :-p supp...@mikrotik.com I may have once asked somebody from MT about it, maybe at a show, and they gave the predicted answer, that they're a *router* company. Sort of like DEC, which was a inicomputer company. Of course MEF has a lot of specs now. They aren't all critical, but support for the basic connection types, with QoS, is what matters. But this is foreign to the whole Linux-router market. Linux is a fossil of the early 1990s, when eye pee was still sort of the new thing, and everything else was assumed to be the enemy, or the eeevull telephone company. RouterOS is basically a lot of lipstick on top of Linux. That world still assumes that connectionless is next to godliness, that QoS is impossible, and that Ethernet is orange hose tied together with MAC-table bridges. For those unfamiliar with it, Carrier Ethernet, which is standardized by the Metro Ethernet Forum, uses the Ethernet frame format to provide a wide range of services that aren't bridging. There's point to point Ethernet Private Line, there's PtMP Ethernet Virtual Private Line, and there's MPtMP LAN emulation. It's usually connection-oriented, using the VLAN tag as the connection ID, not the MAC. It offers CIR+EIR support (three color). It is protocol-agnostic to higher layers. It is manageable. And with the new SPB, it has OSPF routing between network elements, not just RSTP. In other words, it's Ethernet Formatted Frame Relay. And that's good; it's an improvement over the original slow telco FR. It's the fastest-growing area in telecom (it's the new standard for cellular backhaul, for instance). But it's not ideologically part of the Linux/IP family, and people from that world (which includes most WISP suppliers) neither understand it nor understand why it's needed. -- 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] Mikrotik - MEF
On 12/30/2014 6:41 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: I agree with about 50% of this. All of the products I know of that run trill or spb or support several MEF levels are Linux based that are driving FPGAs. You also have stuff like this: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/y1731/ If you look at cumulus networks, their Linux based stack is driving data center network virtualization forward by giving you a common software platform on abstracted hardware. None of it is MEF, but saying Linux has stagnated on the general network front isn't accurate. It does lack a decent open source carrier stack though, including the MEF pieces and things like MPLS. Thankfully some vendors have stepped into that space... For a price. I'm not saying that Linux can't play a role. But the ones you're describing (like Cumulus) are proprietary hardware products using embedded Linux to perform some, not all, of the functions. RouterOS, EdgeOS, fooWRT, and similar OSs are however just Linux, using built-in Linux routing capabilities. And even that is in an entirely different direction from MEF; data center stuff is still connectionless MAC or IP switching. So it's not that Linux isn't present in all sorts of places; it's just that Linux isn't bringing CE to the party. The actual forwarding protocols for Carrier Ethernet don't seem to have been implemented for Linux. At least not in the open kernel. So they're not available to the dirt-cheap Linux router market that WISPs like. I do hope we can get some RINA stuff into circulation though; fully baked (and this hasn't all been coded yet), it is a functional superset of both CE, MPLS, IP, and IPsec, among other things, with a much smaller footprint. On December 30, 2014 2:19:40 PM AKST, Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net wrote: On 12/30/2014 5:05 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: How many WISPs have heard of MEF or CE or even VPLS? So... have you asked for it yet? :-p supp...@mikrotik.com I may have once asked somebody from MT about it, maybe at a show, and they gave the predicted answer, that they're a *router* company. Sort of like DEC, which was a inicomputer company. Of course MEF has a lot of specs now. They aren't all critical, but support for the basic connection types, with QoS, is what matters. But this is foreign to the whole Linux-router market. Linux is a fossil of the early 1990s, when eye pee was still sort of the new thing, and everything else was assumed to be the enemy, or the eeevull telephone company. RouterOS is basically a lot of lipstick on top of Linux. That world still assumes that connectionless is next to godliness, that QoS is impossible, and that Ethernet is orange hose tied together with MAC-table bridges. For those unfamiliar with it, Carrier Ethernet, which is standardized by the Metro Ethernet Forum, uses the Ethernet frame format to provide a wide range of services that aren't bridging. There's point to point Ethernet Private Line, there's PtMP Ethernet Virtual Private Line, and there's MPtMP LAN emulation. It's usually connection-oriented, using the VLAN tag as the connection ID, not the MAC. It offers CIR+EIR support (three color). It is protocol-agnostic to higher layers. It is manageable. And with the new SPB, it has OSPF routing between network elements, not just RSTP. In other words, it's Ethernet Formatted Frame Relay. And that's good; it's an improvement over the original slow telco FR. It's the fastest-growing area in telecom (it's the new standard for cellular backhaul, for instance). But it's not ideologically part of the Linux/IP family, and people from that world (which includes most WISP suppliers) neither understand it nor understand why it's needed. -- 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 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- 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] 5 ghz backhaul sanity check
On 12/1/2014 8:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 5150 != DFS. That's right, which is why it's +41 rather than +30. That number from the actual FCC approval that the NanoBridge M got for U-NII-1. The allowable maximum power is gated by the out-of-band EIRP at 5150, which has to be -27 dBm/MHz, a very stringent standard. That's why the technical U-NII-1 EIRP PTP limit of +53 dBm is never met, and why there's a petition to fix the rule. I think I saw one vendor radio get approval for +48 though, probably not using the same Atheros chipset. From the NanoBridge 5M's recent approval: FCC ID: SWX-NBM5D (SWXNBM5D, SWX NBM5D) Application: 802.11n 2x2 MIMO Application Type: Class II permissive change or modification of presently authorized equipment Equipment Class: II - Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure TX Date: 08/04/2014 Operating Frequencies: Grant Notes FCC Rule Parts Frequency Range (MHZ) Output Watts Frequency Tolerance Emission Designator 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5255.0* - *5340.0**0.0004*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5475.0* - *5595.0**0.0003*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5665.0* - *5715.0**0.0003*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5265.0* - *5320.0**0.0014*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5500.0* - *5580.0**0.0016*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5660.0* - *5700.0**0.0016*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5275.0* - *5310.0**0.0015*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5510.0* - *5550.0**0.0016*** ** 41 CC MO ND *15E* *5670.0* - *5670.0**0.0016*** ** 39 41 CC MO *15E* *5180.0* - *5240.0**0.0396*** Note that the first approvals on the list (around -5 dBm) are for operation very close to a band edge (5250 was a band edge at the time; it no longer is.) The U-NII-1 approval begins at 5180. However, XM 5.5.10 does allow the NanoStation to be tuned down lower, or even to 5155 if you set it to 5 MHz. And if you leave on auto adjust to EIRP limit, it caps the power on the AP side to +36 (the PtMP limit) on 5150-5250, but doesn't enforce the +36 cap on 5725+. I'm not 100% certain that the test lab was following the rules, though, as there is no band edge to protect at 5725. *From: *Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net *To: *wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Sunday, November 30, 2014 11:23:35 PM *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] 5 ghz backhaul sanity check On 11/30/2014 11:55 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: I have a link at 6.6 miles with a pair of Rocket M5. It's at 5765 and has worked beautifully for a couple of years now. It is -55 on each side with 2' dishes. I'm looking at doing another link that's almost identical (one similar tower) and my calculations are showing if I use 5660 at 14dbm tx power I should see -56. Does this sound right at all? 6.6 miles seems far off the top of my head for the DFS band. The ERP limit there is +30, so if you're using +14 tx power, then the antenna gain is only 16 dB or you're noncompliant. That's what a NanoStation does on DFS. A big dish (like the 2 footer, around 30 dB gain) would still help with receive gain but you would have to turn down the Rocket to something lower (0 dBm). UBNT DFS stuff is approved for +41 dBm EIRP or so on the 5150 band, though. -- 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 ___ 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] Need UPS recommendations
On 12/1/2014 1:56 PM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote: We started using Alpha UPS' and we have been happy with them. You have to use your own batteries, but it's nice that you're not locked down to proprietary batteries like you are with the likes of APC and TrippLite. TrippLite also has SNMP cards you can put in some of their UPS' if you are looking for a more complete UPS solution besides APC. You might want to try out one of those SNMP cards on your system before investing too much in them, or choosing on the basis that they exist. Just sayin' Bryce D NETAGO *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett *Sent:* Monday, December 1, 2014 11:12 *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Need UPS recommendations Something like that for a CPE setup would be nice. Powers the radio, router and ATA (preferably at least some of those units are integrated) for a few hours. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com https://www.facebook.com/ICSILhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalbhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutionshttps://twitter.com/ICSIL *From: *Bob M lakel...@gbcx.net mailto:lakel...@gbcx.net *To: *Wispa wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Monday, December 1, 2014 12:06:14 PM *Subject: *[WISPA] Need UPS recommendations Looking for a UPS with SNMP that can send me a loss of AC power alert and power up the backhand radio for maybe 5-10 minutes. Worse case scenario on the radio will 80 watts of draw at 110 vac. Other option would be a basic ups and an external monitoring device. Need something economical because I need to do about 50 sites. Tnx Bob Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone ___ 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 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] 5 ghz backhaul sanity check
On 11/30/2014 11:55 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: I have a link at 6.6 miles with a pair of Rocket M5. It's at 5765 and has worked beautifully for a couple of years now. It is -55 on each side with 2' dishes. I'm looking at doing another link that's almost identical (one similar tower) and my calculations are showing if I use 5660 at 14dbm tx power I should see -56. Does this sound right at all? 6.6 miles seems far off the top of my head for the DFS band. The ERP limit there is +30, so if you're using +14 tx power, then the antenna gain is only 16 dB or you're noncompliant. That's what a NanoStation does on DFS. A big dish (like the 2 footer, around 30 dB gain) would still help with receive gain but you would have to turn down the Rocket to something lower (0 dBm). UBNT DFS stuff is approved for +41 dBm EIRP or so on the 5150 band, though. -- 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] Quickbooks hosts
On 11/25/2014 2:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: Who are you writing checks to and why aren't you doing something better? I haven't written a check in years. One of my Interisle partners is a financial-IT expert, and knows the banking system inside and out. He designed the network for Wall Street twice, most recently after a rather sudden massive failure event in September of 2001... but he doesn't do much finance work any more. The industry has gotten too distasteful. We prefer that our major clients pay by check. The partnership distributes member payments (e.g., my pay) by check. Why not electronically? Because he knows the system too well. It turns out that if you open your account to make ACH payments, it's trivially easy for someone to take an unauthorized payment. A personal account has 30 or 60 days to catch it and undo it, but a business account has two days. So if somebody literally robs you via ACH, you're out the money if you're not checking it daily. Corporations with dedicated finance staffs can do that; small businesses like us (four partners, no staff) can't. Similarly, the cost of electronic payroll-type payments is way too high for a small business. It is insane that the major automation to the US banking system (Europe is ahead of us) is to use scanners to pass around pictures of checks electronically. But the system works pretty well for handling checks, so once you leave that paradigm, it gets funky fast. So we print checks. And I then write checks out of my own business account, both to pay myself and to pay rent and a few other business expenses. -- 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] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/22/2014 5:02 AM, Blair Davis wrote: I'm gonna respectfully say that, from the inside, being told 'That not one of our clients, don't worry about how long the repair lasts.' and 'Why should we bother to put a DSLAM out there? It's only gonna get used up by them anyway.' and 'That pair of T1's is more than enough to feed that subdivision... They aren't our users anyway.' and lots more similar comments in the trenches tend to make me somewhat skeptical of that. I won't say that it may not have been a part of it. I will say, that as the workers saw it, when forced to give away their bread n butter, they rightly felt that it wasn't their problem anymore. When I refer to workers, I mean anyone who would have been CWA or equivalent. I'll even include lower management. To be blunt, the workers were lied to by management. During that era, CWA and IBEW were basically house unions, helping tout the management line so long as their salaries were decent. And under rate-of-return regulation, salaries were allowable expense, passed through 100% to ratepayers so they could pay well. But in reality those lines were just lines, not the truth. Bell culture simply did not recognize the value of wholesale, the channel. It was direct retail sales or nothing. The automobile industry was the opposite -- the dealer network did the heavy lifting of dealing with the actual users. Go to any retail store and you'll see the channel at work, the retailer buying wholesale. It works really well for Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, etc. Before the FCC relieved the Bells of their Title II reporting obligations, but before they relieved them of their wholesale obligations, they reported profit separately for their various subsidiaries. The raw DSL (wholesale) and other wholesale businesses were profitable (Special Access tends towards a 100%+ rate of return!), but the Internet retail subsidiaries, the ones that competed directly with real ISPs, were unprofitable. AFAIK they've never made money on Internet. They only want to drive of the other providers so they can kill it, but now it's too important to kill, hence the NN kerfuffle. Had the Bells been real businesses, managed for long-term profit (vs. management control and ego-tripping), they would have embraced the wholesale channel, not lied about it. Prior to Judge Greene, there was an /'esprit de corps'/ among the people of the Bell System. It persisted under Ameritec... for a while. By the time SBC was trying to become ATT all over again, it was gone. And when SBC became att, the employees, as far as I could see, didn't give a damn any more. It became more 'Good enough to get paid. By the time that becomes a problem, I'll be somewhere else...' . Prior to that, people expected to be working on and using the plant forever. When they fixed something, the fix was intended to last longer that the original. Mary left after 28 years because the culture was gone. She no longer liked working there. It should come as no surprise that the unions are no longer on management's side; they're tired of being dicked around. It wasn't Judge Greene who ended that esprit, either. It was a change in American business culture to one where short-term profit was all that mattered, where CEOs were a privileged class of super-high-paid suckups who got bonuses for both succes and failure, and union-busting was raised to a high art. AFOR was more damaging to labor relations than later demonopolization, as it made salaries and benefits an actual drain on shareholder returns, rather than an allowable expense. (Recall that after Standard Oil was broken up in 1912, it only took a few years before the sum of the parts was worth three times as much as the previous whole. Shareholders, including Rockefeller, cried all the way to the bank.) Now they're in the final stages of abandoning the undermaintained plant, using excuses like IP transition. It mostly means dumping on their last union employees by pushing more business onto non-union wireless subsidiaries. // On 11/22/2014 12:13 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: On 11/21/2014 7:39 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Just and reasonable... Give me a break. There is a reason the carriers let the POTS network decay... My wife, before she died, spent 28 years with Michigan Bell... From before Judge Greene, thru Ameritec and then SBC. She saw this from the inside. Because they were forced to allow others to use their wired plant at prices below the cost of maintenance, let alone upgrades. That was the Bell party line, for public consumption, but it wasn't true. Section 251 (sections of the Communications Act, 47 USC, beginning with 2 are in Title II) has the rules for demonopolization of PSTN carriers. They had a de jure monopoly; they still have a natural monopoly on mass-market services. So they have facilities that are a necessary inpu to competitive providers
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem To Fred's point, the article mentions: That's because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely what defines the service and carrier. The article is pure garbage. Read the January ruling of the DC Circuit. It was quite clear that the Computer II framework was legal. And the Telecom Act was meant to memorialize that, not overturn it. The Computer II framework very explicitly held that the basic carrier function was regulated while the higher-layer enhanced traffic was not. The reason the FCC keeps getting in trouble is that they don't want restore that working model, since it would hurt some carriers' fee-fees. The idea that Title II requires metered pricing makes less sense than the average diarrhea that comes from Louis Gohmerts' tuchus. The .0007 rate is for termination of local telephone calls; it has nothing to do with bits or data services. Whoever wrote the article is either a) an utter ignoramus; b) an utterly contemptible liar, or c) both. There are all sorts of reasons why Title II would break the Internet. But applied to the access layer, it would simply mean that ISPs could lease DSL for a certain price per line per month, and perhaps a certain number of cents per gigabit, but that price would have to be just and reasonable in light of its actual cost to provision. Oh, and Scott Cleland is now a lobbyist for the Bells, a professional liar who used to pretend to be an industry analyst for the Wall Street crowd, but who always shilled for the Bells. Anyhow, not trying to beat a dead horse, but this got me questioning things :) Have a great weekend y'all! -drew On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Drew Lentz d...@drewlentz.com mailto:d...@drewlentz.com wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: ___ 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] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/21/2014 7:39 PM, Blair Davis wrote: Just and reasonable... Give me a break. There is a reason the carriers let the POTS network decay... My wife, before she died, spent 28 years with Michigan Bell... From before Judge Greene, thru Ameritec and then SBC. She saw this from the inside. Because they were forced to allow others to use their wired plant at prices below the cost of maintenance, let alone upgrades. That was the Bell party line, for public consumption, but it wasn't true. Section 251 (sections of the Communications Act, 47 USC, beginning with 2 are in Title II) has the rules for demonopolization of PSTN carriers. They had a de jure monopoly; they still have a natural monopoly on mass-market services. So they have facilities that are a necessary inpu to competitive providers. They built their networks using rate of return regulation and de jure monopoly status (essentially a guarantee of profit) and that put them at the 24 mile line in the competitive marathon. Section 251 says that ILECs specifically and uniquely have to provide unbundled network elements at forward-looking cost. Just what cost is is not a simple answer. Cost is not price. Cost can be embedded direct cost, fully distributed (various methods), long-run incremental, total service long-run incremental, total element long-run incremental, etc. Lots of room to argue cost, and that was a lot of fun back in the rate case days, to do cost studies and argue over details. Non-ILECs have fewer obligations than ILECs. There is a separate fundamental right of common carriage if a company is deemed a common carrier, but the just and reasonable standard is generally enforced only to what I call a shocks the conscience level. No formulas, just don't horribly offend the Commission. It is very rarely invoked. The Bells stopped maintaining their plant because in 1992-1993, they transitioned from rate of return regulation to price cap (alternate form of) regulation. Under rate of return, their total profit was a percentage (11.25% return was the last number, still in use) of their rate base (undepreciated capital plant). So the investment was to invest heavily; investing in rural areas paid really well because the high cost would be recoverable from urban monopoly ratepayers. Under AFOR, though, some basic service prices are capped but not profits, so they could increase profits by reducing costs. And they sure did! AFOR was met by massive layoffs and a general decline in maintenance. Accountants running companies devalue the future, so disinvestment look good to short term profits, and CEOs live for quarterly bonuses, which are not based on how they position the company for 10 years out. Well, 20 years of AFOR and the chickens have come home to roost. The plant is very heavily depreciated, not maintained, and the parent companies have put their capital into wireless, which has been more profitable lately. Such is deregulation, helping turn the USA into a third world country while rentiers take the money and run. Do you want to be forced to allow other to use your wireless network? And have your costs and reimbursements determined by bureaucrats? This would not apply to WISPs even in the unlikely event that WISPs were covered by Title II (which I've strongly opposed). They were never common carriers, and WISP plant is generally not suited for it. (There are wireless common carriers, and you could create one if you wanted, but it would be a choice.) And non-ILEC prices are never set by regulators. The Just Reasonable standard is only raised when a price is truly out of line, like the $68 3-minute pay phone call, or prison phone calls (always collect, typically at dollars per minute, which the FCC is cracking down on now). Not even ILEC retail rates are set by regulators any more, just wholesale rates, which are regulated as part of the must-carry nature of the PSTN. Title II, if forced on the small wisps, will kill us. Probably true, but it's not the facilities they're talking about now, it's the data itself, which Title II was never meant to regulate, so it wouldn't stand up in court. -- On 11/21/2014 6:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote: So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all a little differently: http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem To Fred's point, the article mentions: That's because of the way the law and the forbearance provision are written; they apparently do not allow for any immaculate ruling where the FCC somehow rules the service and carrier of Internet traffic are regulated, but not the Internet traffic itself that is precisely
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/20/2014 12:07 AM, Robert wrote: Ah the days of Covad, Northpoint, etc.. Racing to get high speed internet to needy customers on VC dollars not knowing that behind their backs a quick regulation change would make all that easy pickings for the incumbents... Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.. Fred, please gaze into your magic ball of the past and give us a clue to our future? Are our collective necks starting to hover over the ax block? Ah yes, the days of Covad and Northpoint. It was fun to watch them fail. This wasn't however the FCC's doing. The crazy speculators of the day (investor is too kind a term for them) were dumping money where it was obviously impossible to make a profit, hoping a greater fool would bail them out. When there were six CLECs selling SDSL (aimed at business, full loop) in a suburban CO that didn't have a lot of businesses in it, you knew they were failures. I wrote about this in my book The Great Telecom Meltdown. One thing I like about the WISP business is that the participants don't have other people's money to waste so they're run like actual businesses. Of course the FCC came along and killed off most of the surviving real businesses a couple of years later. Their rule changes were justified by predictions that, predictably to us, never came true. It was a farce; SBC (n/k/a ATT) and Verizon had that FCC in their pocket and they weren't even trying to look fair. As to the crystal ball gazing: I think the WISPs will survive, and I credit WISPA and its legal and FCC teams for a lot of this. The wireline ISP and CLEC businesses never had good organizations behind them -- there were CLEC groups made up of the big guys who mostly did resale/platform, but nobody lobbying for the smaller and more data-oriented CLECs. WISPA literally gets a seat at the table (Steve Coran last week, for instance) so our needs are heard, and on record (which matters come appeal time -- no new facts allowed, but you can mine the record). My actual forecast is that Wheeler, in a few months, will come out with a cockamamie plan that tries to regulate the Internet itself using Section 706 authority, though he might touch Title II. It is likely to not directly impose common carrier regulation (Title II) on WISPs, but it might impact their upstream ISPs. It might make things a little difficult for some WISPs but not be fatal. In any case it will be appealed. Then after the 2016 election, the Court will throw out the bulk of it, noting that Section 706 is not a grant of authority after all (this was a legal issue they overlooked in the last case, where Verizon failed to point that out) and that Title II was aimed at common carriers, not information service providers, and the FCC will have failed to demonstrate that ISPs are common carriers when engaging in peering. Thus no Title II there. (Title II is absolutely legal to apply to the access wire of otherwise-regulated carriers, at the lower layers, and the DC Circuit said so in January. Tom will not go there. If he were to go there, he probably would not touch WISPs -- my Comment gave him a good way to draw that line without saying WISP out loud needing to define the term.) In other words, the FCC will write convoluted rules *designed to be overturned*, so that the next FCC (each president gets his/her own chairman) will be handed the issue again, and have to figure out how to kick the can down the road another 4/8 years, hoping it all goes away. On 11/19/2014 08:32 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: Chuckle :) You all don't know who Fred is :) He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :) I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a dejavu !!! What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm) to see the 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world). :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - From: Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Fred, It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly
Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a fantastic day! You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so different people use it to have different referents. I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the actual telecom provided by the monopolists. So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by facility owners). So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. -- 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] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?
On 11/19/2014 4:22 PM, Sean Heskett wrote: also title II regulations are why an OC3 at 150Mbps costs 100 times as much as 150Mbps metro ethernet. Ethernet is unregulated, OC3 is part of the whole terrified crap left over from MaBell etc. So even though both services are delivered over the same medium (fiber) because of the technology used OC3 is heavily regulated while ethernet is not. Title II will make internet access more expensive, not less. No, not really. The problem is that OC-3 is fully deregulated too -- the FCC only applies title II on circuits up to DS3/OC-1. Thus the monopolists can charge whatever the want for it. Ethernet is more competitive, so they charge less where there is competition. The law isn't about technology, but the FCC is not always neutral. So a 10 Mbps Ethernet is unregulated but the equivalent TDM is. A CLEC can buy DS3, in many cases, for a very low price, where it' a UNE. An ISP has to pay the FCC-authorized price, but in many areas (not all) the FCC has deregulated that too. The Bells view SONET as a medium for carrying phone calls, and price it based on the assumption that it's lost toll revenue on each DS0. Insane. Plus they are using 1990s gear (pre-Cerent) and pricing based on what the paid then, not what newer gear costs (maybe 10% of that). -- 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] 2dbi vs 3dbi vs 5 dbi vs 100mw vs 400mw
On 11/13/2014 1:26 PM, Jason Bailey wrote: Higher gain,lower power works best,in almost any situation. But not necessarily in-home. Higher gain only comes from a more directive antenna. An omni gain antenna has a pancake pattern. If it's a one-story building, fine. But I ran into the opposite situation -- at my house, the AP is in the basement, and WiFi reception was poor on the second floor. So I ended up getting one of MikroTik's 951 high-power routers, and pump out maybe +21 (not its maximum -- I sit near it too much), and it reaches the upstairs much better than the lower-powered 951 (+17, maybe, with a tailwind) could do. And I've run into a lot of other people having trouble with whole-house coverage using standard-power WiFi APs. Sure, the laptop or cell phone won't have much power in it, but in general the upstream signal gets through okay. On Thursday, November 13, 2014 1:15 PM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote: We are comparing multiple SOHO routers and modems that have the same Broadcom chipsets. All of them have 802.11N 2x2 configuration. The only differences between them are if they have internal or external antennas and the gain of the antennas (either 2, 3, or 5dbi ratings). In addition, some sell a high powered wifi radio (400mw) while others have the basic (100mw). How much a difference does each of these hardware features make in overall wifi performance? -- 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] [SPAM] FCC Confirms Delay of New Net Neutrality Rules Until 2015
On 11/12/2014 7:05 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote: Is there any more information on what exactly the FCC is proposing to propose? I know there was Title II thrown around There is no firm proposal. Last week Tom let out a trial baloon suggesting that he'd adopt something based on the Mozilla proposal. That would leave all access providers vertically integrated and not subject to Title II on their access networks (so ISPs would not be allowed to buy raw DSL or cable modem service to compete with the wire owners' captive ISPs), but would treat peering and wholesale exchange of information between computers as Title II Common Carriage, subject to regulatory scrutiny. This is of course ridiculous on its face, especially if you're familiar with Title 47 itself and its legislative history. Essentially they're saying that pi=3, except on Tuesdays when it's marked down to 2.97. How would that impact us, or any other carrier? Net neutrality is about giving all packets equal access -- if I already do that, do I have anything to fear? If you do that, you probably have to fear congestion collapse first. If you buy upstream from a single provider, no peering of your own, you're probably outside of the scope of that proposal. If you have an ASN, things could get very weird indeed. I see the proposal as clearly flawed legally. So do Verizon and I think Comcast. It's appeal bait. This is politics -- there's political pressure to do something about a visible non-problem (the Internet itself is unregulated, so it obviously *must* be under intense attack by cable f*ckery), and other political pressure to not do anything about a less visible problem (lack of competition). So it will go back to court and probably get overturned after the next election. Just like last time. Lather, rinse, repeat. Obama's proclamation doesn't mean anything either. Tom is his political appointee. Now as it happened, Tom screwed up big time, has fallen and he can't get up. So Obama was basically trying to politically undo the damage, giving Tom an excuse to walk back his plan. If you saw Steve's my talk on NN at WISPAPALOOZA, you'll know how complicated this can be. My own position is that Title II should be applied to the lowest-layer offerings of rivalrous facility owners (ILEC, cable, CMRS) but not ISPs per se, or WISPs (non-rivalrous frequency users). The internet concept dates back to 1972 (invented in France!) and separates the network (what carriers provide) from the internetwork. The trouble is, we've lost a layer and the internet and network layers are usually merged. That's broken. IP is being used as a network when it was meant to be an internetwork. I for one would love to see Net neutrality fall on its face, the big ISPs start throtteling traffic, and just have customers driven to us little guys who don't throttle. On 11/11/14, 8:33 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: from: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/11/11/2345213/fcc-confirms-delay-of-new-net-neutrality-rules-until-2015 /The Federal Communications Commission will abandon http://www.dailydot.com/politics/net-neutrality-fcc-tom-wheeler-delayed-obama/ its earlier promise https://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules to make a decision on new net neutrality rules this year. Instead, FCC Press Secretary Kim Hart said, there will not be a vote on open internet rules on the December meeting agenda. That would mean rules would now be finalized in 2015. The FCC's confirmation of the delay came just as President Barack Obama launched a campaign http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/10/statement-president-net-neutrality to persuade the agency to reclassify broadband Internet service as a public utility./Opensource.com is also running an interview with a legal advisor at the FCC http://opensource.com/government/14/11/fcc-advisor-talks-net-neutrality. He says, There will be a burden on providers. The question is, 'Is that burden justified?' And I think our answer is 'Yes.' -- Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com http://www.spitwspots.com ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- 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] small 24GHz radio
On 10/23/2014 6:36 PM, daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca wrote: Sure - http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/2147485870/product_details.aspx?id=27271 I will sell it to you with a radio attached too! ;-) That's for the licensed 24.25-26.5 GHz band. Was the original poster referring to the unlicensed or licensed band? Different rules -- the smaller antenna has only 32 dB gain. Daniel Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca wrote .. Do you have a link? Bryce D NETAGO -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 16:12 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] small 24GHz radio Bryce, I thought you wanted a 38 GHz unit - the 24 GHz antenna would be a -26 model, and you could pair it up with a Canopy radio or anything else of course. Daniel wi...@metrocom.ca wrote .. Hi Bryce, Of course - there is an 8 antenna - 20 cm for us in Canada - that will do the job. I do not know if it is an ETSI Class 4 antenna, which everyone should use if they can, but the Andrew VHLP200-38 is small enough. Keep in mind it would not be a dual-polarized antenna at that size. Daniel Mullen Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca wrote .. Does anybody know of a 24GHz radio that is smaller than 1'? It doesn't have to go very far, but we are wanting 24GHz. Bryce D NETAGO ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] small 24GHz radio
On 10/23/2014 3:00 PM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote: Does anybody know of a 24GHz radio that is smaller than 1'? It doesn't have to go very far, but we are wanting 24GHz. It may be a problem because the FCC rules for that band are pretty strict. From 15.249: (3) Antenna gain must be at least 33 dBi. Alternatively, the main lobe beamwidth must not exceed 3.5 degrees. The beamwidth limit shall apply to both the azimuth and elevation planes. At antenna gains over 33 dBi or beamwidths narrower than 3.5 degrees, power must be reduced to ensure that the field strength does not exceed 2500 millivolts/meter. So you can't get much smaller than a foot an still stay within the 3.5 degree beamwidth, at least using oonventional dishes. (To be sure, I haven't done or seen a computation of exactly how big a dish that would be, or what alternative shapes would do, but I assume that the uniformity of 24 GHz antennas is based on that rule.) -- 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] small 24GHz radio
On 10/23/2014 6:36 PM, daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca wrote: Sure - http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/2147485870/product_details.aspx?id=27271 I will sell it to you with a radio attached too! ;-) That's for the licensed 24.25-26.5 GHz band. Was the original poster referring to the unlicensed or licensed band? Different rules -- the smaller antenna has only 32 dB gain. Daniel Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca wrote .. Do you have a link? Bryce D NETAGO -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 16:12 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] small 24GHz radio Bryce, I thought you wanted a 38 GHz unit - the 24 GHz antenna would be a -26 model, and you could pair it up with a Canopy radio or anything else of course. Daniel wi...@metrocom.ca wrote .. Hi Bryce, Of course - there is an 8 antenna - 20 cm for us in Canada - that will do the job. I do not know if it is an ETSI Class 4 antenna, which everyone should use if they can, but the Andrew VHLP200-38 is small enough. Keep in mind it would not be a dual-polarized antenna at that size. Daniel Mullen Bryce Duchcherer bduc...@netago.ca wrote .. Does anybody know of a 24GHz radio that is smaller than 1'? It doesn't have to go very far, but we are wanting 24GHz. Bryce D NETAGO ___ 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] InterMapper probes for Ubiquiti in PTP mode
Do many people here use InterMapper? We use it as our NMS, monitoring a variety of switches and radios. Each monitored devices requires a probe, or else IM falls back to use standard SNMP variables or even just ping. The probes can be constructed fairly easily out of a MIB. Ubiquiti doesn't do much to help. It doesn't make a supported MIB available. There are some user-contributed probes, but they didn't seem ideal. There was a MIB posted in the 5.6-beta discussion, but its OID enterprise number is not found in any radios we're using, so maybe they're moving to it in 5.6 (which I haven't tried). So we ran snmpwalk over 5.5.6 radios to find out what UBNT's SNMP actually could support, and updated the probe to include more information. Interestingly, most radio-specific OIDs we found were in the MikroTik enterprise-specific space. Maybe those were contributed back to the open source community, or maybe somebody at UBNT just borrowed them. We are using UBNT radios in point-to-point configurations. Compared to the version on the Help Systems web site, our probe at the access point side now includes more information about the connection (radio speed and actual WLAN bit rate being transferred) -- the standard probe doesn't, since it assumes there are multiple connections. Our station-side probe adds the bit rates. These probes work well with the 5.3-5.5 series, including 5.5.10-RC2; it also works with 5.2, though the WLAN bit rate doesn't probe correctly. So if anyone's using InterMapper and wants to try our UBNT probes, here they are. Feedback welcome. http://interisle.net/InterMapper%20Probes/Ubiquiti/Ubiquiti80211AP%20probe.txt http://interisle.net/InterMapper%20Probes/Ubiquiti/Ubiquiti80211client%20probe.txt -- 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] att-and-verizon-say-10mbps-is-too-fast-for-broadband-4mbps-is-enough
On 9/8/2014 5:28 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/att-and-verizon-say-10mbps-is-too-fast-for-broadband-4mbps-is-enough/ Ironically, ISTM that would probably be good for WISPs. If the FCC decides that 10 Mbps is the baseline and areas that don't get it become eligible for USF subsidies, areas with WISP unsubsidized competitors are among those likely to be hit by subsidized new entrants (usually ILECs). 4 Mbps isn't spectacular but other than HD video, it is adequate for most applications. Some 5 GHz systems can of course go faster than 10 Mbps, but it would be a real crunch on 900 MHz and TVWS networks, low frequencies needed in wooded areas. -- 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] More FCC fun on 13-49
While we had submitted Comments already on the U-NII/ISM OOBE issue, I've also been looking at the first U-NII-1 outdoor type approvals coming down the line. These provide concrete evidence that the OOBE limits are severely restricting useful power. So I collected the actual numbers from the approvals that were granted and used them to create a Reply Comment: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521797201 This also blasted Cisco's recent Response, which was basically a big attack on the WISP industry. I hope the FCC gets the message; we certainly are showing solidarity. -- 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] Mimosa Networks New product released
On 8/5/2014 11:21 AM, Adair Winter wrote: I didn't want to be negative nelly this morning. But that was my thought also.. I'm moving as much as possible to licensed links because I can't hardly keep my 5Ghz PtP's running out of my data center. The 5 GHz band is getting quite crowded, but at least this new radio seems to be efficient in how it uses the spectrum. Any of these U-NII radios essentially transmits based on demand. If traffic is 10 Mbps and the link is capable of 500 Mbps, it won't be on the air very much of the time. So it doesn't need the frequency all to itself. We are doing a lot of urban links and share the frequencies with all sorts of stuff, including Cable WiFi (all over, even below 5250, ugh), but it doesn't kill performance, at least for the type of moderate load applications (mostly cameras) we're supporting on 5 GHz. We do most of the backhaul on higher frequencies but 5 GHz is sometimes used as a backup to take over during rain fade. During the storm last week that brought a tornado just a few subway stops from downtown Boston, we even lost 11 GHz links for time. The rainfall was off the charts for the second time in a month. But 5 Ghz links hardly noticed it. Also to Mimosa's credit, it comes with a 44 cm 25 dB dish, whose narrowness helps with frequency reuse. It will probably produce a lot less clutter than outdoor access points, or even some indoor access points that use more power than necessary. (We put a NanoBridge 5G25 on a hilltop and were able to pick up WLANs inside office towers four miles away.) And they are petitioning the FCC to open up 10 GHz under Part 90 (light licensing, like 3650). On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com wrote: Oh dear so more backhauling noise on the 5GHz spectrum? AF5 + Mimosa Matt Hoppes Director of Information Technology Indigo Wireless +1 (570) 723-7312 tel:%2B1%20%28570%29%20723-7312 On 8/5/14, 9:31 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote: Have to give them credit on the website. Nice look J *_Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer_**Author of Learn RouterOS- Second Edition http://www.wlan1.com/product_p/mikrotik%20book-2.htm Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP Support Services Office*: 314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 tel:314-735-0270 *Website*: http://www.linktechs.net http://www.linktechs.net/ -- *Skype*: linktechs skype:linktechs?call */ /**/-- Create Wireless Coverage's with /*www.towercoverage.com http://www.towercoverage.com http://www.towercoverage.com/*//*/--*900Mhz -- LTE -- 3G -- 3.65 -- TV Whitespace */ *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Gino Villarini *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2014 7:49 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* [WISPA] Mimosa Networks New product released http://www.mimosa.co/home/b5-page.html Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr ___ 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 -- Adair Winter VP of Network Operations / Owner Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071 C: 806.231.7180 http://www.amarillowireless.net ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- 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] Mimosa Networks New product released
: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org mailto:rharn...@wispa.org adm...@wispa.org mailto:adm...@wispa.org (Rick and Trina) *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On Behalf Of *Jaime Fink *Sent:* Tuesday, August 05, 2014 9:10 AM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Networks New product released Joe Adair Pricing details will be officially released in our press release at 8am PST, on our website www.mimosa.co http://www.mimosa.co, and products on display at the Streakwave Building Bridges event in San Francisco starting tomorrow. 2 more hours guys! Cheers! *Jaime Fink*. *Mimosa* . *Chief Product Officer* 300 Orchard City Dr Ste 100 . Campbell . CA 95008 . www.mimosa.co http://www.mimosa.co This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. On Aug 5, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Adair Winter ada...@amarillowireless.net mailto:ada...@amarillowireless.net wrote: What's something like this going to cost? Or is that still a highly guarded secret? :) On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com wrote: http://www.mimosa.co/home/b5-page.html Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com http://www.aeronetpr.com/ @aeronetpr ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Adair Winter VP of Network Operations / Owner Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071 C: 806.231.7180 http://www.amarillowireless.net http://www.amarillowireless.net/ ___ 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] Experimental Licenses? Public Service Commissions?
On 7/25/2014 12:29 PM, Sam wrote: Two questions for you guys... Have any of you ever heard of a requirement to obtain an Experimental License (via a Form 442) to start up or operate a WISP? I'm trying to find something online that states what sort of radio, frequency, activity, or anything that defines who must obtain this license, but am finding nothing related to unlicensed spectrum. No, you don't need an Experimental license to operate a WISP. Form 442 is the application for an experimental license, which is governed by Part 5 of the FCC Rules. Such licenses are for experimentation, product development, and market trials. If equipment is type approved, it is not experimental, but a manufacturer might use this Part in order to test out new equipment or technology that isn't yet approved. Part 5 devices can theoretically operate in any part of the spectrum, provided that the license is granted -- the experimental license can be very specific about frequency, power, etc., as it's issued on a case-by-case basis. WISPs usually operate under Part 15, which regulates unlicensed devices. (The 3650 MHz band is in Part 90, as it requires a non-exclusive license.) So the FCC doesn't generally care about your Part 15 operation so long as you use type-approved equipment and follow the appropriate rules for that equipment and the frequency it's operating on. Note that there can be some special cases; under the new U-NII rules, if you have 1000 outdoor access points on the 5150-5250 band, you have to give the FCC notice. But it's still unlicensed. Have any of you ever heard of a requirement to register with a state's Public Service Commission (for a WISP providing Internet connectivity only - no VOIP, telephony, etc.) Not like a carrier. You're providing an information service per federal definitions, and it's jurisdictionally interstate. It's not like a CLEC that needs certification. But there could be some kind of state business-licensing rules that apply to WISPs in some states; that's a legal question. If a WISP wants to become an eligible telecommunications carrier in order to participate in the forthcoming Universal Service Fund reverse auctions and get federal USF money, it will need ETC certification, which usually comes from the state PUC, but I think you don't need that until after you win the auction. -- 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] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site
On 7/7/2014 6:53 PM, Adam Greene wrote: Fred, I think one aspect of the new 15.407 (U-NII) rules that UBNT may not yet meet is the 40MHz filter requirement on both ends of the 5725MHz-5850MHz spectrum, which as I understand it, will effectively limit the usable range to 5765MHz - 5810MHz. Or maybe they already have the filter? In any case, the range reduction will still mean replacing some existing deployments with different frequency gear, if I'm interpreting the new rules correctly. :( Thanks, Adam I did a little research on that today, just enough to be dangerous. The requirement in 15.407 that drives everyone nuts is that out-of-band emissions must be at -17 dBm/MHz EIRP at the band edge and -27 dBm/MHz at 10 MHz. That translates to 40 dB at the edge if you use the +53 dB limit of the 5150-5250 band. Compare to 15.247 which is 30 dB relative to the desired signal, not to a fixed EIRP. It's trivial to meet 30 dB. It's harder to meet 40 dB. So either you need more distance from the band edge or a filter, but the filter is frankly impractical, almost a straw horse argument. So I pulled the FCC's type approval report for UBNT's NBM5, which in fact has 15.407 approval. The lab report includes spectrum analyzer plots. As I read it, that radio actually does seem to meet 40 dB suppression at around 10 MHz from the edge of a 20 MHz 11n signal, so (with 5850 the limit) it could be centered at 5830. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, but it looked mighty clean, and since the antenna is integral, it doesn't have to worry about EIRP. However, the U-NII plots were being done down in the 5250 band, where the tested power output was only around 0 dBm, since EIRP is capped at +30 (less if 20 MHz wide) and there are two chains feeding a 25 dB dish. It might not be quite so clean at full power, what's now allowed on 5150 and what's proposed for 5725. Heck, at 0 dBm the final amp an run in full Class A and not get warm. (Mimosa's petition notes that a Class A amp is usually around 5% efficient, the more common Class AB about 10%. I'm sort of surprised that microwave GaAs is not more efficient; I'm used to the much higher efficiency of HF ham and broadcast-band transmitters.) Anyway, there are two petitions, Mimosa's and WISPAs. Mimosa just wants the interference cap modified so that if antenna gain is 6 dB, the unwanted signal can go up by 6 dB. That results in a 40 dB ratio from a +30 transmitter, or 30 dB from a +20 transmitter. And the ability of a professional installer to mix'n'match antennas is saved. So I'm working on a Comment in favor of both petitions. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:03 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site On 7/3/2014 9:33 AM, Ben Moore wrote: $135 MSRP for rocket-lite. That's excellent. One of the contractors working with us recently replaced a pair of old Motorola PTPs with NanoStation Ms. It's just a camera, so it doesn't need much speed, so when I found its wireless side converging at 270 Mbps (the bottleneck is the Ethernet), I turned it down to a 20 MHz channel so it's merely 130 Mbps. And I moved it down to DFSland, where the AP side properly moved the slider all the way to the right at +14 (since the antenna gain is 16 dB). But lessee... the old Motorola charged extra for allowing speeds above 25 Mbps, extra for encryption, and cost about 50 times as much as the UBNT to begin with. Oh, but the PTP had a metal body, unlike the nano. But the new Rockets are metal too. So really, it's embarrassing -- if you're the one still trying to sell at the old Moto price points! Not to rain on the sunshine here -- but I did see one issue when I actually read the FCC test report. It was only being tested for the 15.247 band (5725-5850), not U-NII. At least the old PTPs had DFS (with separate SKUs needed to use the DFS and non-DFS channels!), and the plain NanoStation does. So will the Rocket-lite have U-NII support? That could include either or both of the DFS bands and the new UNII-1 band at 5150. I also notice that WISPA is petitioning to have the 15.407 (U-NII) rules changed to be easier to meet. But the NanoStation, Rocket M, and NanoBridge already do, at low cost, so does UBNT know more than its competitors do, or are the new rules harder? -- 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] UBNT RocketAC spotted on FCC site
On 7/3/2014 9:33 AM, Ben Moore wrote: $135 MSRP for rocket-lite. That's excellent. One of the contractors working with us recently replaced a pair of old Motorola PTPs with NanoStation Ms. It's just a camera, so it doesn't need much speed, so when I found its wireless side converging at 270 Mbps (the bottleneck is the Ethernet), I turned it down to a 20 MHz channel so it's merely 130 Mbps. And I moved it down to DFSland, where the AP side properly moved the slider all the way to the right at +14 (since the antenna gain is 16 dB). But lessee... the old Motorola charged extra for allowing speeds above 25 Mbps, extra for encryption, and cost about 50 times as much as the UBNT to begin with. Oh, but the PTP had a metal body, unlike the nano. But the new Rockets are metal too. So really, it's embarrassing -- if you're the one still trying to sell at the old Moto price points! Not to rain on the sunshine here -- but I did see one issue when I actually read the FCC test report. It was only being tested for the 15.247 band (5725-5850), not U-NII. At least the old PTPs had DFS (with separate SKUs needed to use the DFS and non-DFS channels!), and the plain NanoStation does. So will the Rocket-lite have U-NII support? That could include either or both of the DFS bands and the new UNII-1 band at 5150. I also notice that WISPA is petitioning to have the 15.407 (U-NII) rules changed to be easier to meet. But the NanoStation, Rocket M, and NanoBridge already do, at low cost, so does UBNT know more than its competitors do, or are the new rules harder? -- 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] 38GHz Spectrum Usage
On 6/30/2014 10:24 AM, Jack Lehmann wrote: Outside of the distance sensitivities, is there a clear reason why one would or would not want to use this band? If it's readily available in my area, while the FCC bands are quite congested, would there be anything in particular to compel me to keep away from it and figure out how to use one of the other FCC regulated bands (11, 18 and 23)? Can you get permission to use 38 GHz? It is one of those strange bits of spectrum that was a auctioned off in geographic chunks, so given blocks of spectrum had exclusive owners in a given area, like cellular. I guess the idea was that they could then build ptp networks without worrying about coordination. But it never caught on. FiberTower had accumulated a lot of 38 GHz licenses and was trying to lease them out, and had a deal with Dragonwave. But they went bankrupt and the licenses were revoked in 2012. Some other license holders might however be looking to find renters. But since there's no rent on 23 GHz, and it's usually easy enough to license it, why bother? 38G is right between 23 and 60, with less rain fade than 60 and none of that oxygen attenuation (why 80 is usually better), but enough rain fade to limit it to about 2 miles reliably useful range in temperate zones (where are you?). -- 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] USAF Request - Read this is you want to keep using 5630-5800 Mhz
On 6/13/2014 2:42 AM, Blair Davis wrote: A question Part 15 vs ISM I thought there was NO protection within the ISM bands. No licensed operations there. Now, someone can get a license in the middle of an ISM and then force the others out? Don't sound kosher... But I want to know where to apply for one of these. I can force everybody off 2.4GHz then... ;) The Table of Frequency Allocations, which NTIA last released in August, 2011, summarizes who actually owns which piece of spectrum. A given allocation is either government exclusive (thus primarily run by NTIA), non-government exclusive (thus primarily run by FCC), or shared. NTIA, however, does allow some government-exclusive frequencies to be shared, and current law essentially requires them to open up a certain amount of it to unlicensed use. Each sliver also has both primary and secondary users; secondaries have to protect primaries. The 5 GHz band (5150-5850) is divided into nine separate slivers. Primary on 5650-5830 is government exclusive radiolocation (radar). Amateur is secondary. Unlicensed and ISM are even lower on the pecking order. -- On 6/12/2014 3:10 PM, Jack Unger wrote: I'm going to ask the FCC Enforcement Bureau to reschedule the meeting to June 25 (one week later) so WISPA's FCC Committee Chair (Alex Phillips) and I (WISPA's FCC Committee Technical Consultant) can attend. For any solution to be successful, we need more technical information about how the radar actually operates. We also may be able to apply some of the knowledge we gained when we addressed the 5.6 GHz Terminal Doppler Weather Radar interference situation a few years ago. Hopefully the FCC will agree to our request. We expect that a collaborative approach between the DoD, the FCC and the unlicensed community, which as Scott pointed out is much larger than just WISPs, will be the best and most successful approach. jack (760) 678-5033 -- 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] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a CLEC). 5) Does it matter how I use the circuit? 6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly? Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774[Call: 301-515-7774[Call: 301-515-7774] #] # IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org 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 mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org 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 mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org 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 mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org 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 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 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] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs?
On 4/15/2014 5:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Guys, I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider. (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet IP) Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF. I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my claim to my upstream. Nope. USF is applied to jurisdictionally-interstate telecommunications. Not information service, which is what an ISP provides. But a point to point link is a classic example of a telecommunications service, ye olde private line updated to fiber. And since it is carrying Internet traffic, which is interstate (10%), the circuit is interstate, and thus taxable. Disclaimer: IANAL; this is just how I understand it. If you were a CLEC and collected USF yourself, then your upstream links would be wholesale, and you could show them the FCC web site entry proving you paid USF, exempting you from paying them and exempting them from collecting from you. USF is collected once, by the last non-de-minimis telecom provider in the sales chain. So your provider correctly sees you as an end customer of telecom and thus has to collect it from you. IP transit is something else, not covered by USF. THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost. The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost. The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost. First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the State. Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was applicable it was always only around 6%. That circuit isn't broadband, it's just a private line. What you do with it is your business; USAC wants their cut. And the price has been over 15% for years now. It skyrocketed in 2006 when Bell DSL was declared to be purely an information service and thus exempt, vs. before that when it had a legally-separate telecom component (the raw DSL that an ISP could get out of the Special Access tariff). And the total dollar value of long distance phone calling has gone down, so the huge money paid to rural ILECs is divided by a smaller revenue base. Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. So questions are 1) Am I exempt as a WISP. 2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate) You aren't exempt, since you aren't collecting it from your customers. What you're buying and what they're being taxed on isn't broadband. 3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what is the current % rate? CAF doesn't really change who pays in; it changes what's paid out, if/when it takes full effect. 4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I classify myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a CLEC). Being CLEC probably doesn't matter. USF comes after you if you even smell remotely like interstate telecommunications and aren't clearly exempt. Those rural ILECs need somebody to pay for their $250/month/line subsidies. 5) Does it matter how I use the circuit? If it were purely intrastate (e.g., to connect two locations of a company for PBX remote extensions), it would not be jurisdictionally interstate, which triggers federal USF. Of course some states have small USFs of their own. 6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly? Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code. If it's a tough call, this is best left to lawyers who've fought it out with USAC, or followed those cases. Case law is more important than black letter rules. -- 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] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Excellent Summry. Can you clarify. In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar to 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could transmit at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was increased via antenna gain. Does that still apply for the new UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz rules? Under the old ISM rules for 5725-5850, there was no EIRP limit for point to point: (ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power. Under the ISM rules for 2400-2483.5 MHz, there is a 1 for 3 rule, so you can keep 2/3 of the EIRP above +36 that comes from antenna gain: (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum conducted output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. Under the old U-NII rules for 5725-5825, there was an EIRP limit on point to point that was higher than the +36 dBm limit for point to multipoint. For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required. So the old EIRP point to point limit under U-NII was +53 dBm. The FCC proposed making that the new unified rule, but -- WISPA and members to the rescue! -- ended up adopting the ISM no EIRP limit instead. Get those Rocket dishes out... but only above 5725. (BTW, ISM refers to Part 18 RF heaters. 15.247 is the unlicensed intentional radiators using bands where ISM is the primary user of the frequency, hence the nickname.) I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new outdoor use of Unii 5.1 Ghz. Correct. The 5150-5250 U-NII-1 segment inherits the old U-NII-3 rule that everybody got around via the ISM rule (boy is that confusing), capping EIRP at +53. The new 5150-5250 fixed rule: For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi. - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 14-30) in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules. The actual RO text was released later in the week. For the most part, it came out well for WISPs. Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been opened to outdoor use. Note that this was not the final word on 13-49. It focused on the U-NII-1 band (5150-5250) and U-NII-3 band (5725-5825). The proposed new U-NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands were not addressed. Those are more controversial and await a later RO. Key changes that were announced: The 5725-5850 ISM band (Rules Part 15.247) was essentially merged with U-NII-3 (15.407). The upper band edge of U-NII-3 was moved from 5825 to 5850 to match ISM. Wideband digital operation was removed from ISM, limiting 15.247 operation on that band to frequency hopping spread spectrum (narrowband) and the FH portion of hybrid devices. As of one year after publication in the Federal Register, no new 15.247 wideband devices will be type-approved for that band, and sale and importation must stop in two years. Existing devices may continue to be used. The WISP community did dodge a bullet here, as the new U-NII-3 rules are closer to the ISM rules than to the old U-NII rules. In particular, the proposal to limit EIRP of fixed point-to-point links to +53 dBm, the old U-NII-3 limit which did not apply to ISM, was not adopted. Fixed point-to-point U-NII-3 operation can still have unlimited antenna gain with 1 watt transmitter power. Some of the credit goes to WISPA, who is acknowledged in the Order. (Cambium too, while its former parent Motorola Solutions was on the wrong side.) Power spectral density rules were also modified to a favorable outcome. The old U-NII-3 rules required 20 MHz bandwidth for full power. The new rules are closer to ISM's, requiring a minimum 6 dB bandwidth of only 500 kHz for full power. Point to multipoint EIRP is still capped at +36 dBm. So there is little lost in the new
Re: [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
On 4/15/2014 6:54 PM, Dan Petermann wrote: For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi” What is the assumed transmitter power? 30dBm? Yes (I didn't copy that sentence of the rule but that's what it says). On Apr 15, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Excellent Summry. Can you clarify. In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar to 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could transmit at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was increased via antenna gain. Does that still apply for the new UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz rules? Under the old ISM rules for 5725-5850, there was no EIRP limit for point to point: (ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power. Under the ISM rules for 2400-2483.5 MHz, there is a 1 for 3 rule, so you can keep 2/3 of the EIRP above +36 that comes from antenna gain: (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum conducted output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. Under the old U-NII rules for 5725-5825, there was an EIRP limit on point to point that was higher than the +36 dBm limit for point to multipoint. For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required. So the old EIRP point to point limit under U-NII was +53 dBm. The FCC proposed making that the new unified rule, but -- WISPA and members to the rescue! -- ended up adopting the ISM no EIRP limit instead. Get those Rocket dishes out... but only above 5725. (BTW, ISM refers to Part 18 RF heaters. 15.247 is the unlicensed intentional radiators using bands where ISM is the primary user of the frequency, hence the nickname.) I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new outdoor use of Unii 5.1 Ghz. Correct. The 5150-5250 U-NII-1 segment inherits the old U-NII-3 rule that everybody got around via the ISM rule (boy is that confusing), capping EIRP at +53. The new 5150-5250 fixed rule: For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi. - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 14-30) in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules. The actual RO text was released later in the week. For the most part, it came out well for WISPs. Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been opened to outdoor use. Note that this was not the final word on 13-49. It focused on the U-NII-1 band (5150-5250) and U-NII-3 band (5725-5825). The proposed new U-NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands were not addressed. Those are more controversial and await a later RO. Key changes that were announced: The 5725-5850 ISM band (Rules Part 15.247) was essentially merged with U-NII-3 (15.407). The upper band edge of U-NII-3 was moved from 5825 to 5850 to match ISM. Wideband digital operation was removed from ISM, limiting 15.247 operation on that band to frequency hopping spread spectrum (narrowband) and the FH portion of hybrid devices. As of one year after publication in the Federal Register, no new 15.247 wideband devices will be type-approved for that band, and sale and importation must stop in two years. Existing devices may continue to be used. The WISP community did dodge a bullet here, as the new U-NII-3 rules are closer to the ISM rules than to the old U-NII rules. In particular, the proposal to limit EIRP of fixed point-to-point links to +53 dBm, the old U-NII-3 limit which did not apply to ISM, was not adopted. Fixed point-to-point U-NII-3 operation can still have unlimited antenna gain with 1
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
On 4/15/2014 6:39 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Fred, Ok, so in summary A WISP Internet Provider is an Information Service and does not collect or charge USF. And that end-to-end Internet Information Service solution is composed of 3 In-line components, working togeather as one. 1. Wireless last mile (provider me) 2. Fiber-based Metro IP transport (provider A) 3. IP transit (provider B) And the sole purpose and use of the Metro-IP Transport link is to deliver information Services to the End User, as a part of the solution.. Information Services are the higher layer payload of telecommunications. When the telecommunications itself is provided as a service, it's a telecommunications service. And that's subject to USF. That you are using it to deliver an information service is none of their business. Be thankful, when you think about it. So, you are saying. Under that Circumstance, the Metro IP tranport layer can not be claimed as a wholesale Component of an Information Service, and WISPs must consider themselves an End User of telecommunications Services, and be subject to USF and Taxation on that circuit, because Metro-IP Data services are considered Telecommunications services, regardless of how they might be used. There is no wholesale component rule. The telecommunications component of a vertically-integrated information service is no longer subject to USF. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:55 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Excellent Summry. Can you clarify. In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar to 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could transmit at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was increased via antenna gain. Does that still apply for the new UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz rules? Under the old ISM rules for 5725-5850, there was no EIRP limit for point to point: (ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power. Under the ISM rules for 2400-2483.5 MHz, there is a 1 for 3 rule, so you can keep 2/3 of the EIRP above +36 that comes from antenna gain: (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided the maximum conducted output power of the intentional radiator is reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi. Under the old U-NII rules for 5725-5825, there was an EIRP limit on point to point that was higher than the +36 dBm limit for point to multipoint. For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required. So the old EIRP point to point limit under U-NII was +53 dBm. The FCC proposed making that the new unified rule, but -- WISPA and members to the rescue! -- ended up adopting the ISM no EIRP limit instead. Get those Rocket dishes out... but only above 5725. (BTW, ISM refers to Part 18 RF heaters. 15.247 is the unlicensed intentional radiators using bands where ISM is the primary user of the frequency, hence the nickname.) I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new outdoor use of Unii 5.1 Ghz. Correct. The 5150-5250 U-NII-1 segment inherits the old U-NII-3 rule that everybody got around via the ISM rule (boy is that confusing), capping EIRP at +53. The new 5150-5250 fixed rule: For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi. - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 14-30) in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules. The actual RO text was released later in the week. For the most part, it came out well for WISPs. Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been opened to outdoor use
[WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
of existing gear will be permitted for two years without meeting all of the new rules, but not afterwards. So it seems to me that UBNT and Cambium gear should be all good to go on the new frequencies pretty quickly, as they are U-NII approved. I don't think MikroTik is (it's apparently ISM, not DFS approved here, unless they've recently gotten it), so their radios will need new approval, and the more restrictive software, in order to stay on sale here after two years, let alone operate on the newly-authorized outdoor frequencies. All told the rules are a positive outcome. Congratulations to everyone who helped influence the FCC. -- 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] OT Fax over Voip
of the link is in doubt, and you haven't been using T.38, then by all means give T.38 a try, assuming your Grandstream devices can act as T.38 gateways (it's not enough for them to have T.38 passthrough support, they must have GATEWAY functionality). Once you finally get past all of the interop issues, T.38 really can work magic for FoIP on uncontrolled IP links. If you are using T.38 (or, heck, even if you aren't using T.38), try forcibly lowering the maximum modulation rate that their fax machine will attempt to handshake to the other side with. It is still (sadly) incredibly common for most production T.38 implementations these days to be based off of version 0, which does not include support for gatewaying V.34, only V.17. If they have a Super G3 fax machine, the T.38 gateway feature should in theory just ignore the handshake and not even engage and try to re-INVITE to T.38, but you never know...could be buggy. Or if you aren't using T.38, V.34 modulation rates could be more sensitive to timing and jitter issues. So limit the fax machine to 14400bps or 9600bps. Hope this helps, -- 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] OT Fax over Voip
On 4/2/2014 5:24 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote: On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 6:55 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote: But in addition to that, I STRONGLY recommend a separate VLAN for the voice-grade channels. With priority, or reserved bandwidth. TCP/IP in normal operation manages its flow rate by having packets thrown away; that's why the 1G LAN port on your PC doesn't blast a whole file at 1G into a 2M link. It uses packet loss as a signal. TCP applications retransmit and actual human voice is intelligible with some gaps, but modems, including fax, are very unhappy. Do note that RTP is implemented over UDP, not TCP, so in VoIP, a dropped audio packet is a lost audio packet, not a delayed or even out-of-order audio packet (although those other two things can happen...they just aren't a result of retransmits, or at least not a retransmit initiated by Layer 4). I guess my grammar was a bit rough there! So you're of course right. TCP applications retransmit. (period) Actual human voice (which doesn't retransmit, as it can't wait) is intelligible some gaps. Modes, however, including fax, are very unhappy with gaps. And stressing Nathan's previous note (*what* doesn't work?), this may be one of those *rare* occasions when a video (YouTube anyone?) might actually help. Although the audio alone is more important. If we could (see and) hear the call being dialed by the originating fax, hear what the ring sequence sounded like, and heard the response, with the speaker belching the CNG tone all along, it might help identify the problem. But really, fax and VoIP don't get along very well unless you really tune the VoIP network up to support it. And I know how some faxes are picky. My office fax line sat here virtually unused for years, but my wife needs to receive faxes regularly. Her fax is on a Comcast PacketCable (they call it VoIP but it's really managed VuIP) line that is shared with her office phone and answering machine. My fax (both are Brothers) can send hers a fax. The answering machine gives its spiel, starts to listen, then the fax hears CNG and cuts off the answering machine and sends modem tones. Just like it's supposed to work. But the fancy new fax server system at the courthouse just won't send to it. (Nor will some sizeable fraction of other machines.) It will send to mine, which isn't shared with an answering machine, but not one that is. Picky picky. Fax is like that. -- 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] OT Fax over Voip
On 3/31/2014 10:03 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote: I have a customer that we installed an IP phone system for. They moved their office to a new building where the telco couldn't or wouldn't bring service to. So I have the PBX at their old location where the COs come in and we go over a wireless link to the new office where they use their internet and IP phones, and all works great. So their fax machine sits at their old location and they want it in their new location. They are not interested in doing Internet fax at this time, but I may have to introduce it again. A while ago we bought some Grandstream gateway devices. We have them configured correctly and they transmit and receive voice just fine, just no fax. So, the scenario would be the CO goes into a gateway device to convert to digital, goes over the LAN to the other gateway device. That device hooks up to the fax machine. If someone has done this before can you share the products you may have used? The products we have say they will work this way, but no luck, just voice transmission. I may have a bad device as well. Also, is there any internet fax services that allow users to use their existing fax machine? I know it's a little weird to ask that, but some people have a hard time with change using their PC to send faxes Which solution is best for the customer depends on how they use fax and how critical it is. I just uploaded my FCC Comments on the ATT experiment, one which proposes that fax capabilities be lost. I pointed out that fax is sometimes used for reasons that distinguish it from email: Security and privacy (no middle man server), knowledge of receipt (not just to a mailbox), and reliability (no servers, no attachments). Internet fax is actually the worst of both worlds, putting fax in series with email. So it's useful if you get the occasional fax from someone who can't scan documents otherwise, but it's not useful if you use fax the way pharmacies, doctors, and courts do. Since VoIP doesn't support modems or fax, if they need real fax, they need a way to extend the signal (dial tone) to the new site. This can't just run over best efforts IP. But there are systems that do the timing and buffering to enable TDM to be reliably emulated across a wireless link (I suggest using a high-priority VLAN and no public IP). We're using the RAD IPmux series. We're putting them in to replace T1s, for instance, to support fire department voting receivers (very quality critical) across Ethernet radios. Not exactly cheap, but it's a nice tool. They are available with different types of interfaces. -- 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] Number's that can't port to VOIP
On 3/27/2014 3:11 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: This is the adjacent rate center to one of our main service areas, it is a local call. Different telco though. As a general rule, any rate center's numbers can be made portable if they aren't already so. It can worst case take six moths to implement. But that was usually done long ago. However, in order to port a number into a rate center, the carrier (CLEC) needs connectivity to the tandem switch that serves that rate center, which may belong to the ILEC in that rate center, or a third ILEC, not the one in the bigger exchange next door. If you tell me the rate centers in question I may be able to determine that for you. CenturyTel[/link] is notorious for being uncooperative, hoping state regulators let them bend the rules their way. And some rural ILECs think they're exempt from interconnection rules, though they're not. So it would not be surprising if the underlying CLECs just don't touch those RCs. On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Typically, you can check to the local calling guide and if the rate center with the numbers is local to a rate center your providers are in, you should be good to go. YMMV. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:01:38 PM *Subject: *[WISPA] Number's that can't port to VOIP We have a customer on fringe of a rural Century Tel area and both of our voip providers came back saying they were unable to port the number for us. Are there remote areas where you still can't port a number? Is there a way to find out if anyone can port this number? Like a master list or database I can search? ___ 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 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] Number's that can't port to VOIP
On 3/27/2014 5:57 PM, Darin Steffl wrote: We've got a local Telco and Frontier prefixed that we can't port to ANY voip provider, only to cellular providers. No one has been able to find a way to port these prefixes or some other ones I didn't list here. 507-634 507-635 507-365 Ah, the world-famous Kasson and Mantorville Telephone Company! :-) Those tiny ones can be tough. They are in LATA 620 but subtend the Plymouth tandem, which is in Minneapolis LATA 628. Odd, but there are a number of those exchanges in the Rochester LATA. That tandem belongs to Minnesota Equal Access, a sort of CLEC that runs a tandem on behalf of many small ILECs. Maybe they could help you. Their prefix codes are local but a CLEC generally needs an interconnection agreement with them, and I doubt many have them. Just not worth the bother. But I do see Mantorville numbers belonging to Sprint-CLEC, MCC, and bandwidth.com. So they may have arrangements. 507-528 507-527 Those are Frontier Citizens, the old (not ex-GTE) rural ILEC. Portable but not pooled. Both remotes of the Kenyon switch, on CLQwest's Owatonna tandem. Jaguar Communications is the only CLEC with Claremont numbers; Sprint and MCC have West Concord numbers. On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: On 3/27/2014 3:11 PM, Chris Fabien wrote: This is the adjacent rate center to one of our main service areas, it is a local call. Different telco though. As a general rule, any rate center's numbers can be made portable if they aren't already so. It can worst case take six moths to implement. But that was usually done long ago. However, in order to port a number into a rate center, the carrier (CLEC) needs connectivity to the tandem switch that serves that rate center, which may belong to the ILEC in that rate center, or a third ILEC, not the one in the bigger exchange next door. If you tell me the rate centers in question I may be able to determine that for you. CenturyTel[/link] is notorious for being uncooperative, hoping state regulators let them bend the rules their way. And some rural ILECs think they're exempt from interconnection rules, though they're not. So it would not be surprising if the underlying CLECs just don't touch those RCs. On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net wrote: Typically, you can check to the local calling guide and if the rate center with the numbers is local to a rate center your providers are in, you should be good to go. YMMV. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com *From: *Chris Fabien ch...@lakenetmi.com mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com *To: *WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org *Sent: *Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:01:38 PM *Subject: *[WISPA] Number's that can't port to VOIP We have a customer on fringe of a rural Century Tel area and both of our voip providers came back saying they were unable to port the number for us. Are there remote areas where you still can't port a number? Is there a way to find out if anyone can port this number? Like a master list or database I can search? ___ 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 mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred atinterisle.net http://interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Darin Steffl Minnesota WiFi www.mnwifi.com http://www.mnwifi.com/ 507-634-WiFi http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ___ 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
Re: [WISPA] VoIP reselling.
On 3/26/2014 12:53 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: Doesn't sound right to me, unless they are going to do all the billing and tax filing in your behalf. If they charge you USF on your wholesale rate, who pays on the difference between your wholesale rate and the customer's marked up rate? USF rules are pretty strict. If a USF-subject class of carrier has interstate telecommunications revenues (not Internet per se) that would subject it to USF payments of $10k/year, then it is de minimis and does not pay. BUT then its suppliers treat it as retail and they pay on the services supplied to the de minimis carrier. Once the carrier crosses out of de minimis, it suppliers must verify that it is paying USF, and then should not charge it USF on their wholesale sales. So it's paid once, only once, by the last non-de mimimis carrier en route to the retail customer. (Disclaimer: IANAL and that's just my understanding.) E911 is a state requirement. Interconnected VoIP services have to do it, but the state sets the price. On 3/26/2014 10:51 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've been using Vitelity for a while in the office here, with freeswitch, and it works great. I was considering reselling the vitelity service to my customers, the only thing that has held me back is the legal requirements. I thought I had to collect USF fees, register with the FCC, pay it to them. Maybe sales tax. etc. I was at wispamerica yesterday and talked to a fellow at the Vitelity booth. He told me that they collect the USF, so we don't have to, the e-911 is optional, all I have to do is sign up as a reseller to get better pricing and charge what I like to the customers. Is this correct? I've learned to never trust a salesman. Something doesn't sound right, surely it can't be that easy? Thanks, Roger ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Randy Cosby InfoWest, Inc 435-674-0165 x 2010 --- This e-mail message contains information from InfoWest, Inc and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, review or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contactrco...@infowest.com by reply email and destroy the original message, all attachments and copies. ___ 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] VoIP reselling.
On 3/26/2014 1:44 PM, Roger Howard wrote: So if I'm de minimis, do I have to register anything with the FCC? or just ignore it and let Vitelity pay until I get big? If you're de minimis -- and just reselling might be an out, if the underlying carrier owns the customers, pays USF, and essentially gives you a commission, but I'm really not sure about that -- then you still have to file Form 499-A (annual) and give the numbers. If you're above the limit, then you file Form 499-Q (quarterly) and give the numbers and remit the money. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: On 3/26/2014 12:53 PM, Randy Cosby wrote: Doesn't sound right to me, unless they are going to do all the billing and tax filing in your behalf. If they charge you USF on your wholesale rate, who pays on the difference between your wholesale rate and the customer's marked up rate? USF rules are pretty strict. If a USF-subject class of carrier has interstate telecommunications revenues (not Internet per se) that would subject it to USF payments of $10k/year, then it is de minimis and does not pay. BUT then its suppliers treat it as retail and they pay on the services supplied to the de minimis carrier. Once the carrier crosses out of de minimis, it suppliers must verify that it is paying USF, and then should not charge it USF on their wholesale sales. So it's paid once, only once, by the last non-de mimimis carrier en route to the retail customer. (Disclaimer: IANAL and that's just my understanding.) E911 is a state requirement. Interconnected VoIP services have to do it, but the state sets the price. On 3/26/2014 10:51 AM, Roger Howard wrote: So I've been using Vitelity for a while in the office here, with freeswitch, and it works great. I was considering reselling the vitelity service to my customers, the only thing that has held me back is the legal requirements. I thought I had to collect USF fees, register with the FCC, pay it to them. Maybe sales tax. etc. I was at wispamerica yesterday and talked to a fellow at the Vitelity booth. He told me that they collect the USF, so we don't have to, the e-911 is optional, all I have to do is sign up as a reseller to get better pricing and charge what I like to the customers. Is this correct? I've learned to never trust a salesman. Something doesn't sound right, surely it can't be that easy? Thanks, Roger ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Randy Cosby InfoWest, Inc 435-674-0165 x 2010 tel:435-674-0165%20x%202010 --- This e-mail message contains information from InfoWest, Inc and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain privileged, proprietary or confidential information. Unauthorized use, distribution, review or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contactrco...@infowest.com mailto:rco...@infowest.com by reply email and destroy the original message, all attachments and copies. ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org mailto:Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred atinterisle.net http://interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701 ___ 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] Do i have enough separation
On 3/14/2014 4:44 PM, heith petersen wrote: Yeah, its 2.4 omni. Yeah, I wouldn't have done it that way, I thought he used more of the real estate that we had available on the platform. But yeah, that was the cause, moved it away 10 foot and increased through put. Understandable problem. A guy from UBNT admitted to me that the 5G and 900M radios were both 2.4 internally, at the chip level, shifted (superhet, anyone?) to their bands of operation. So a strong 2.4 signal could interfere. -- 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
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
Re: [WISPA] ePMP PTP Results
On 3/10/2014 10:21 AM, Chris Fabien wrote: Some clarification: These were $99 connectorized radios which I chose because I am interested in a cheap upgrade from rockets or a more stable alternative to mikrotik. On a 40mhz channel I'm sure you'd see a benefit from the gigabit eth ports on the $500 radios. When I say limiting it to 90Mbps eliminated the latency spike, that is true for aggregate as well. So If I limited it to 50Mbps TX and 40Mbps RX, it would not spike, if I limited TX to 50Mbps and left RX open, it would run up to ~55-60Mbps RX and then I saw the latency spike. I did this to eliminate 100mbps eth port as a bottleneck in testing. Were you testing it on a radio with a 100 Mbps Ethernet port? That could certainly cause issues if you're pushing it hard; it can have a two-way aggregate, of course, well beyond 100 Mbps, but not knowing the setup, it's possible that the buffer delay was not in the radio but in the device feeding the radio. So I don't want to blame Cambium if it might have been a testing artifact. I am not real familiar with the Buffer Bloat issue Fred mentioned, but I can confirm I was seeing these results for 10 minutes constant using the Mikrotik bandwidth test, TCP, 20 connections, whatever packet size is the default (I think large). Bufferbloat is one of the biggest problems in real-world IP networks. It is when a router has too large a buffer. So packets arrive and are queued for long periods of time, creating large amounts of latency and jitter. Memory is cheap and some designers might not realize that buffer queues need to be limited in size. My quick'n'dirty rule is that no device buffer should be more than ten packets deep, though the math whizzes can be more accurate. But if there's a really large buffer, a single TCP flow may adapt to it and make a performance test look good. It's like 0-60 time on a car -- if that's your only metric, then terrible handling won't show up. It's almost like melamine in baby formula. Speed on networks is not all that matters, but it's an easy metric to talk about, so breaking things to improve a speed test is a temptation. BTW the whole bufferbloat thing blew up several years ago when a packet was clocked taking seven seconds (!) to get through an ATT Mobility 3G connection. Such old packets are worse than useless. I was testing using a CCR at one end and a RB450 at the tower end. The 450 CPU may have been a bottleneck but througput was still much higher than the Rockets. I did ping the RB450 from a different interface and the ping times were normal so the latency spike was not due to CPU load on the RB450. Chris On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, timothy steele timothy.pct...@gmail.com mailto:timothy.pct...@gmail.com wrote: The test setup they had at AF did not give me much hope that they are doing real world testing they had the RF outputs from the SM's hard wired to the AP --- Sent from Mailbox https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox for iPhone On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: 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
Re: [WISPA] Tower Seminars?
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] Fw: FW:
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] OT computer issue
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] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
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 par...@cyberbroadband.net 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) li...@packetflux.com mailto:li...@packetflux.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 asteph...@ptera.com 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?
Box 135 24001 E Mission Suite 50 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509-927-7837 tel: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 tel: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?
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 fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 asteph...@ptera.com 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 par...@cyberbroadband.net 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) li...@packetflux.com mailto:li...@packetflux.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org 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 asteph...@ptera.com 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
Re: [WISPA] Are we being muscled out of the 5265 - 5700 frequencies?
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?
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 fgoldst...@ionary.com 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?
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?
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 asteph...@ptera.com 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
[WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports
We've been seeing a strange problem on a network we operate that has a lot of (mostly old) Motorola PTP400 radios on it. These use the Motorola PIDU POE injector. They're connected to HP Procurve and Cisco 3550 switches. The problem is that some radios literally kill the switch ports. Sometimes it begins with alignment and CRC errors on the switch ports. But then the port might fail, and the radio has to be plugged into another port... until it fails. It's an odd failure mode too; the 3550 thinks the port is OK, and sees it as going up and down as the PIDU is attached and detached, but it doesn't pass packets. The fix is to insert a small dumb switch to isolate the 3550 from the PTP, but that's kind of a nasty hack. Ciscos seem somewhat more susceptible than HPs, but we're migrating towards the venerable Ciscos because they are more manageable. We think we have the speed and duplex matching right. And while we can't be sure, the cabling in most cases looks okay. Anybody else run into this? Thanks. -- Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred at interisle.net Interisle Consulting Group +1 617 795 2701 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Motorola PTP radios killing switch ports
On 2/3/2014 6:30 PM, l...@mwtcorp.net wrote: On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:36:02 -0500 Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 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] HAM colo costs
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
://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] Wireless Digest, Vol 24, Issue 16
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 fgoldst...@ionary.com 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 tel: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
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] Advice Needed on 200 Mbps FDX Radios
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%2FianframsonFacebook http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTradeShowInternetGoogle Plus Page http://s.wisestamp.com/links?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplus.google.com%2F115903484193884732934Twitter 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] 5.8GHz all frequencies bad?
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] MDU wiring
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] FW: FCC Adopts Order to Combat Rural Call Completion
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
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). fgThe 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] Siklu/Dragonwave 80 Ghz..
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
