Re: [WISPA] Solar powered repeater kit

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

With solar you size it based on where you are and amount of potential sun that 
location would get. I agree more panels are better. There's also power 
consumption in any of the charging equip plus invertors if used. Also there are 
AGM type batteries (think that's it) which are better for solar than cat 
batteries. Been awhile since I researched this going on senior brain cells :-)

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2014, at 12:41 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> That looks like massive overkill, are you using a ~10 watt load or are you 
> doing much more?  Quick math tells me the batteries would do 12 days on a 10 
> watt load.
> 
> Do you find you need a 290 watt panel (though this also leads back to the 
> question)?
> 
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Sam Tetherow  wrote:
>> I have one up for 2 customers.  They paid the cost on the tower and solar 
>> setup, I put up the AP.  Pretty low maintenance, only issue I have on them 
>> is snow accumulating on the panels.  
>> 
>> Astronergy 290W 24V panel  $280
>> Morningstar SunSaver SS-10L-24V Charge Controller   $63  
>> MC4 cable
>>$31
>> Shipping 
>>  $249
>> 
>> Two deep-cycle RV battteries from Sams Club (120ah)  $250
>> 
>> Wire the load out of the charge controller to the DC in on a Toughswitch put 
>> up a NanoBridge for the backhaul and a NanoStation for the AP.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 04/08/2014 11:00 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>> Has anyone deployed a solar powered repeater for a single customer?  For 
>>> example, their house is in the middle of a forest but you can provide 
>>> service at the end of their lane.
>>> 
>>> This comes up here and there and I'm looking to put together a kit of 
>>> Nanos, solar panels, battery and give the customer the price.  I thought I 
>>> would ask here before reinventing the wheel.
>>> 
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> ___
> 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] OT Fax over Voip

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

What I of for faxing is use vitelitys fax service. It comes in to my email as 
PDF case closed. Outbound I got fax working from my machine or I send it via 
the Vitelity fax portal. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 2, 2014, at 6:18 PM,  wrote:
> 
> I havent got my tech to log what he has done so far. Lines will connect to 
> and from remote fax machines, no handshake apparently, no talky over the 
> devices. I will be more descriptive shortly. Sucks that he is four hours 
> away and a rookie compared to me with telephony, not that I am much better 
> haha
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Fred Goldstein
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 5:08 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Subject: 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 
> 
> ___
> 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] OT Fax over Voip

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

You don't need vlans but helps in keeping voice and data separate. but what is 
needed is qos. Make sure that is setup correctly. Even with vlans you should 
have it. 

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 2, 2014, at 9:03 AM,  wrote:
> 
> OK, I will. Right now its on my remote techs bench with a Cat5e cable and a 
> switch between the 2 devices. Where this will be going is a farmers elevator 
> site 150 feet between the 2 buildings using UBNT NSM5 radios, excellent 
> quality. Right now they are using 5 VoIP NEC phones at the remote site, plus 
> the same link is carrying their data needs as well, for 5 PCs. I didn’t 
> build separate VLANs as it is a very small network. Regardless I cannot get 
> these to work 10 feet to each other over cable. Voice works great. I will 
> have my tech put together what he has done. He has several hours into it. 
> Usually we wouldn’t dive into stuff too deep, but this customer also hosts a 
> major site for us using their grain leg
> 
> thanks
> heith
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Nathan Anderson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 8:52 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT Fax over Voip
> 
>> On Monday, March 31, 2014 7:04 AM, wi...@mncomm.com <> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> If you are talking about a private point-to-point wireless link shot between 
> two buildings across a parking lot or whatever, with excellent link quality 
> characteristics and low jitter and latency, there is no reason that I can 
> think of why moving the fax machine over wouldn't "just work".  Perhaps you 
> could share with us the following:
> 
> 1. Model of the Grandstream gateways in question.
> 2. How you have the gateways configured (e.g., codec being used and such).
> 3. What equipment you are using to do the wireless shot.
> 4. Average throughput, latency, and jitter across that link.
> 5. Whether the link is for phone use only, or is combined voice and data.
> 6. ...if combined, whether any kind of QoS is being employed to promote 
> voice transmission ahead of data.
> 
> ...and, most importantly...
> 
> 7. What exactly happens when you try to send or receive a fax over the 
> gateway devices.
> 
> A vague "it doesn't work" description never helped anybody solve anything. 
> :-)  Give us details.  How does it fail, exactly?  How far along does it 
> get?  Is it able to transmit a partial page and then the connection drops? 
> Or can it not even complete the handshake with the other fax machine?  If it 
> works for voice, I very much doubt you have a "bad device", unless it is a 
> software/firmware issue on the device(s).  If the device was physically bad, 
> I suspect the defect would present itself in other ways as well.
> 
> General things to try out and to look out for:
> 
> If you are using some fancy, efficient voice codec like G.729, turn that 
> crap off.  Limit both gateways to negotiate G.711u with each other only.
> 
> If they have a T.38 option, make sure it is either enabled on both sides, or 
> disabled on both sides...if there is a mismatch, some SIP stacks behave very 
> badly if/when their re-INVITE to T.38 is rejected by the other peer.
> 
> If the gateway devices support T.38 and it happens to be enabled, try 
> turning it off.  The T.38 spec is so vague as to often be useless, and there 
> can be interop problems even between two identical devices (I swear that 
> sometimes vendors don't test their own products...it's infuriating).  And on 
> a private, short-haul link like that, I would sure think that using G.711u 
> PCM for both voice and fax transmission would be sufficient and pose no 
> problems.
> 
> On the other hand, if latency and jitter are sometimes a problem and the 
> quality 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 e

Re: [WISPA] AT&T MIS Throughput

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Auto doesn't always work right on gig ports. Try and make sure you and AT&T are 
set the same. Watch the interface stats and see if u have any errors etc. 
Mismatched interfaces are always a problem. 

I'd use the in net tests to give u better info. If u want to use speed test.net 
use Washington as it's close to the heavily used ashburn peering point. I 
prefer myspeed.visualware.com and use Dulles location close to ashburn. 


But sort out any interface issues first. Call AT&T and find out if they see 
any. 

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Roger Howard  wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks, some good points. It's an edgerouter lite. CPU stays low. It's around 
> 3%. I was having trouble originally, when AT&T had their switch port set at 
> 100/full, and the edgerouter was too. I was only getting 1-2mbps on the 
> upload. I finally got AT&T to switch their port to auto negotiate. Now it's 
> communicating at a gigabit and upload speeds are much better. However, it 
> seems like something is still not quite right.
> 
> Even when it was at 100/full I could plug in my laptop directly at 100/full 
> and get good speeds. But going through the edgerouter was poor. I need to try 
> plugging in directly again now that the switch port is on auto negotiate. 
> 
> I think I'm going to have to go down there during the night and plug in 
> directly and do some testing. Figure out if it's the edgerouter that is the 
> problem or the fiber link itself.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>> How is your CPU on your router?  65 mbps sounds low for sure.  If you are on 
>> a 100 Mbps circuit have you ever plugged a PC in directly and made sure you 
>> are getting the speed. With 100 M setup 92 is about the Max but you have a 
>> long way to get to there.   What type of router?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Things to look at:
>> 
>> Router CPU Load (while running test)
>> 
>> Queues setup wrong
>> 
>> Poor cable between upstream and router.
>> 
>> Wrong Handshaking from upstream.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Steve Barnes
>> 
>> General Manager
>> 
>> PCSWIN.com
>> 
>> Howard LLC.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Roger Howard
>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 12:18 PM
>> 
>> 
>> Cc: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AT&T MIS Throughput
>>  
>> 
>> Yes, it's doing around 20-25mbps download right now, and less than 3 megs on 
>> the upload. When I'm running the test, the download speed on the router 
>> climbs to about 50mbps.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>> 
>> Roger are you looking at your router while you are doing these speed tests.  
>> If you are already pushing out doing 60 Meg of traffic then you cant add 
>> another 100 on top of that .
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Steve Barnes
>> 
>> General Manager
>> 
>> PCSWIN.com
>> 
>> Howard LLC.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Roger Howard
>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:55 AM
>> Cc: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] AT&T MIS Throughput
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What about this one? I just got 23Mbps down and 66 up.
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.att.com/speedtest/
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:
>> 
>> It's hard to trust a random server on speedtest dot net.   If Att has their 
>> own server on that site I would expect similar results as the Att test being 
>> it's on the same network 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 24, 2014, Roger Howard  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I can max out my 100Mbps fiber connection by uploading 10 files 
>> simultaneously to an AT&T test server. But single stream speed tests like 
>> speedtest.net and speakeasy.net/speedtest seem to be all over the place. 
>> like sometimes less than 10mbps, sometimes more than 50mbps. Is it just me, 
>> or do those test sites do that for everyone?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] AT&T MIS Throughput

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Make sure u pick a server that is close to a known peering point to get more 
accurate results. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Roger Howard  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I can max out my 100Mbps fiber connection by uploading 10 files 
> simultaneously to an AT&T test server. But single stream speed tests like 
> speedtest.net and speakeasy.net/speedtest seem to be all over the place. like 
> sometimes less than 10mbps, sometimes more than 50mbps. Is it just me, or do 
> those test sites do that for everyone?
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Fwd: Service avail in Wisconsin ?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

sorry for crosspost  please see below

 Original Message 
Subject:Service avail in Wisconsin ?
Date:   Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:04:48 -0500
From:   Leon D. Zetekoff 
To: memb...@wispa.org



See below

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:


*From:* Elliot Gluskin mailto:eglus...@gmail.com>>
*Date:* December 24, 2012, 2:51:30 PM EST
*To:* "Leon D. Zetekoff" mailto:wa4...@arrl.net>>
*Subject:* *Re: Hi*

My partner's address is N1377 Southern Road, Lyndon Station, WI 53944.


They are using Hughes up there. Please let Elliot know if you can serve 
and please cc: me offlist.


Thanks Leon



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

Re: [WISPA] What's this 900mhz Interference look like?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Depends up near Canada and certain other locations power on 450 is limited

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:21 PM,  wrote:

> 1500 watts PEP.
> Sent from my BlackBerry®
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Jenkins 
> Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:56:42 
> To: WISPA General List
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] What's this 900mhz Interference look like?
> 
> ___
> 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] Internet Speed test..are they inaccurate with wireless?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Take a look at visualware.com those tests are more accurate than speed test.net

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:26 PM, Blake Covarrubias  wrote:

> Matt,
> 
> How much bandwidth on average are you seeing to your speed test servers?
> 
> We're considering becoming a speedtest.net host, but are concerned about the 
> amount of bandwidth generated by users outside our network.
> 
> --
> Blake Covarrubias
> 
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Matt Jenkins  wrote:
> 
>> We setup a speedtest server. So when customers connect to speedtest.net they 
>> reach our local server. The test data never leaves our network.
>> 
>> 
>> On 08/21/2012 12:27 PM, Joey Craig wrote:
>>> We only guarantee from the customers radio to our servers and we make sure 
>>> the customer is aware of that. We use Jperf/Iperf also…works very well.
>>> How can you guarantee ANYTHING beyond your network? You are absolutely in 
>>> the right.
>>> 
>>> Joey Craig
>>> Network/RF Engineer
>>> Firenet1.Com
>>> Phone:  (662) 510-0764
>>> Mobile: (662) 404-1118
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>>> Behalf Of Bret Clark
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:22 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Internet Speed test..are they inaccurate with wireless?
>>> 
>>> We mostly deal with business customer and guarantee bandwidth to customers. 
>>> We validate the bandwidth using IPERF from a Linux server off of our BGP 
>>> edge routers down to the customer and IPERF always shows the customer 
>>> getting the bandwidth they signed up for.  We use QoS to control bandwidth 
>>> and make sure to not oversubscribe any one linksmall ratios of 3:1. 
>>> 
>>> Of course eventually at some point the customer runs one of those stupid 
>>> bandwidth test on the Internet and the results are woefully inaccurate (not 
>>> in our favor)...but  of course customers take the results as gospel. 
>>> AAA!
>>> 
>>> It's not our internet connections, we have three 100Mbps BGP links and none 
>>> of them run at more then 50% during peak loads.
>>> 
>>> Has anyone else found those Internet speed test to be woefully inaccurate? 
>>> Or is something else going on that I'm missing?  
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Bret
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> 
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Internet Speed test..are they inaccurate with wireless?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

The visualware servers are Accurate and u can deploy them on your network as 
well. The Dulles,va server is located off the ashburn peering point so that's 
the one I always use and suggest. 

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Bret Clark  wrote:

> We mostly deal with business customer and guarantee bandwidth to customers. 
> We validate the bandwidth using IPERF from a Linux server off of our BGP edge 
> routers down to the customer   and IPERF always shows the customer 
> getting the bandwidth they signed up for.  We use QoS to control bandwidth 
> and make sure to not oversubscribe any one linksmall ratios of 3:1. 
> 
> Of course eventually at some point the customer runs one of those stupid 
> bandwidth test on the Internet and the results are woefully inaccurate (not 
> in our favor)...but  of course customers take the results as gospel. 
> AAA!
> 
> It's not our internet connections, we have three 100Mbps BGP links and none 
> of them run at more then 50% during peak loads.
> 
> Has anyone else found those Internet speed test to be woefully inaccurate? Or 
> is something else going on that I'm missing?  
> 
> Thanks,
> Bret
> ___
> 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] UNBT PowerBridge 10

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Also ham band here

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 29, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> Actually, its for Europe market where 10 ghz us unlicensed
>  
>  
> Gino A. Villarini
> g...@aeronetpr.com
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> 787.273.4143
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:52 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UNBT PowerBridge 10
>  
> Pretty sure it's the sole use of some nameless Guvm't agency
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Jeromie Reeves  wrote:
> Has anyone figured out why its not available in fcc land? The 10ghz
> bands have some ptp microwave designation but I
> am not familiar with what modulation/antenna/etc are required in the bands
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Josh Luthman
>  wrote:
> > It is available where you can legally operate it.
> >
> > 10Ghz can't be used with the FCC.  Looks like you're in Michigan
> > so...no soup for you =(
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Jay DeBoer
> >  wrote:
> >> A) is the PowerBridge M10 actually out on the street or is this an
> >> "available soon" product.
> >> B) if it is out is anyone using it?
> >>
> >>
> >>  I'm looking at some new ptp links and am leaning heavily toward licensed
> >>
> >> thanks for the input
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jay DeBoer
> >>
> >> Chief Engineer
> >> Summit Digital Holdings, Inc.
> >> 100 N Roland St, Suite B
> >> McBain, MI 49657
> >>
> >> Office: 231-825-2500
> >> Direct: 231-908-0033
> >> Fax: 231-908-0039
> >> jdeb...@summitdigital.us
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > ___
> > Wireless mailing list
> > Wireless@wispa.org
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>  
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] What are the must have Android apps for installers

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Fing

Jim Patient  wrote:

>LanDroid
>Lattitude
>ConnectBot
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Pat O'Connor
>Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:46 AM
>To: WISPA General List; Washington State WISP Discussion
>Subject: [WISPA] What are the must have Android apps for installers
>
>Upgrading to a smartphone, HTC Hero S.  Just wanted to see what tools
>are available for wireless installers.
>
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>-
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4829 - Release Date:
>02/24/12
>___
>Wireless mailing list
>Wireless@wispa.org
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] 3.65Ghz and HAMs

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

I believe the amateur band is just below 3.5 to 3.6 I think

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 10, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:

> On some online forums I have been seeing people claiming to be hams
> saying that they can use 3.65 Ghz as it is a ham band.
> Now, I thought it was for something else and now is license lite. Is
> this a band we share with hams?
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Agreed I think the call setup Is the key

Leon 

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Gary Garrett  wrote:

> The ringing current from the Telco to the base unit is 120 cycles per 
> second AC.
> It would be more like AC hum on a sound system.
> 
> I would bet the 2.4 phone system is using most if not all the band at 
> pretty low power.
> Probably it is the wake up and setup for a call that is knocking out the 
> ISP not the ringing its self.
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/27/2011 5:56 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> What about from the copper pair to the handset?
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

I would concur with this too

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:29 PM, "Brian Webster"  
wrote:

> With the price of cordless phones now days and the cost of your customer
> support time, I would just buy them a new phone. If you get a DECT 6.0
> version you are certain not to have problems. Those are used exclusively in
> the guard bands around the 1800 MHz PCS frequencies and are set aside
> specifically for cordless phones only. It's also fairly cheap to get a multi
> extension set.
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Reed
> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference
> 
> I have a customer that has determined that every time the phone rings, the
> Internet goes down.  Once the phone is answered, the Internet works.  We are
> using 2.4GHz to the house, with an integrated Arc panel on the roof.
> The customer has checked and the phone does not have a channel selection
> button.
> Anyone have suggestions as to how to get the phone to not kill the wireless
> link?
> 
> --
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> 
> 
> 
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
> 
> www.nwwnet.net
> (765) 855-1060
> (765) 439-4253
> (855) 231-6239
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

R u running sub channels? That might work

Ldz

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Hammer?
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/26/2011 2:10 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> I have a customer that has determined that every time the phone rings,
>> the Internet goes down.  Once the phone is answered, the Internet
>> works.  We are using 2.4GHz to the house, with an integrated Arc panel
>> on the roof.
>> The customer has checked and the phone does not have a channel selection
>> button.
>> Anyone have suggestions as to how to get the phone to not kill the
>> wireless link?
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Porting Number to VoIP

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

One other thing is for example where I live is owned by frontier. So I got a 
DID out of the reading, pa rate center which is toll free from the Leesport 
rate center I am in. So you can offer DIDs from adjoining areas preferably with 
a larger calling area

Hth leon

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:47 AM, "Andy Trimmell"  wrote:

> I hear if you’re trying to port from a rural telephone company the porting 
> process is pretty horrible. They make it almost impossible and drown you in 
> paperwork and most people give up. That might be the same case here.
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 9:10 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Porting Number to VoIP
>  
> I live in an area in Eastern Indiana that used to be Verizon and now is 
> Frontier.  I have gone to a VoIP system at my office and love it.  I got an 
> ATA to setup my home, got the temp number and started the port process and My 
> home exchange cannot be ported by my provider. It is different than the 
> office exchange. They are checking with Level3 to see if there is anything 
> more that can be done. I want to start offering VoIP to that exchange but if 
> I can’t get the port to go I will have very few takers.
>  
> What is my next step.  What should it do before I file a complaint with the 
> FCC?
>  
> Steve Barnes
> General Manager
> PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Porting Number to VoIP

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

The key is the rate center the NNX is in and who controls that center. 

You can go to VoIP.ms or vitelity.com and see if they can port. They both get 
their DIDs from the same carrier.

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 9, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Fred Goldstein  wrote:

> At 11/9/2011 09:10 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
>> Content-Language: en-US
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>> 
>> boundary="_000_E0FAAC2954BAC6459A09C629880F395275A78F28DCVMBX102ihoste_"
>> 
>> I live in an area in Eastern Indiana that used to be Verizon and now 
>> is Frontier.  I have gone to a VoIP system at my office and love 
>> it.  I got an ATA to setup my home, got the temp number and started 
>> the port process and My home exchange cannot be ported by my 
>> provider. It is different than the office exchange. They are 
>> checking with Level3 to see if there is anything more that can be 
>> done. I want to start offering VoIP to that exchange but if I 
>> can’t get the port to go I will have very few takers.
>> 
>> What is my next step.  What should it do before I file a complaint 
>> with the FCC?
>> 
> 
> As other have noted, there are potential complications.
> 
> Some small carriers have prefix codes that are not 
> portable.  Frontier isn't one of them; they're too big.  However, 
> there are prefix codes not yet made portable, so when a customer 
> wants to port a number out of them, there can be up to a six month 
> wait for portability to be implemented, after a bona fide request.
> 
> Porting requests are made by the incoming carrier. VoIP providers are 
> usually not carriers; they typically go through Level 3 or Paetec 
> (will Windstream still want to do this?) as the actual carrier who 
> would request the port.  Sometimes the link between the VoIP provider 
> and carrier is not so strong, so the carrier won't go out of their 
> way if there's a hangup (pun intended) in the process.
> 
> I can check the portability status of the number block in question -- 
> what's the number (NPA-NXX-D; I don't need your whole number, just 
> the thousands-block) you're trying to port?
> 
> 
>  --
>  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>  +1 617 795 2701 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Suggestions for Private Label VOiP

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

VoIP.ms u can setup this

Leon

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2011, at 4:07 PM, "Patrick D. Nix, Jr" 
 wrote:

> Anyone have suggestions for a private label voip reseller program that you 
> have had good success with?  Something with potential for local numbers even 
> in rural communities.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC Adopts Wireless Backhaul Reform

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

If it were bonded and half dux then it would be a 50 MHz channel but full dux 
not in my book

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 9, 2011, at 6:30 PM, "David E. Smith"  wrote:

> 
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 16:17, Jack Unger  wrote:
> Finally, the FCC approved the use of 25 MHz channels in the 13 GHz 
> band. Channels in this band are full-duplex (one transmit channel paired with 
> one receive channel) so this is the equivalent of allowing 50-MHz channel 
> widths.  
> 
> 
> I don't quite understand this. If it's one 25MHz transmit channel, and one 
> 25MHz receive channel, how is that the equivalent of a 50MHz channel? To me, 
> it looks like the equivalent of 25MHz full-duplex channel - just one where 
> the rx and tx are actually on separate channels, but they're still only 25MHz 
> wide each.
> 
> David Smith
> MVN.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Well after the acquisition, yes :-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> You mean Windstream?  :-p
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/5/2011 5:56 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
>> I work for PAETEC and we use cisco and adtran routers and those are Fxs 
>> ports which is also doable with ata's as well but in that case you need a 
>> sipnpbx. The adtran routers tax have PRI handoff as well
>> 
>> Ldz
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Duncan Scott  wrote:
>> 
>>> We've also made use of the TA 900 series stuff for T1 PRI to SIP trunk.
>>> Works very well.
>>> 
>>> A 904 has 4 analog ports,
>>> 
>>> ~Duncan
>>> 
>>> On 8/5/2011 12:37 PM, Patrick Shoemaker wrote:
>>>> The folks on the Voiceops list seem to be fans of using Adtran for this:
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/product/4212904L1/39
>>>> 
>>>> Let me know if you try one of those out. I'd like to start doing this too. 
>>>> I'd want the CPE to be as dumb as possible. An asterisk box at the 
>>>> customer seems like a lot of complexity and room for failure modes to me.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Patrick Shoemaker
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>>>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
>>>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 15:09
>>>> To: WISPA General List; us...@wug.cc
>>>> Subject: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI
>>>> 
>>>> Has anyone set these up for customers?  We were thinking about putting an 
>>>> Asterisk box in with a T-1 PRI interface and connecting it to the 
>>>> customer's equipment.
>>>> Would this work?
>>>> 
>>>> Any pitfalls?  Any affordable turnkey solutions for this?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>> 
>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>> 
>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>> 
>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>> 
>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>> 
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> 
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

U don't need to get numbers from incumbents etc. The nice thing about VoIP is u 
don't need separate numbers you can have multiple channels per "trunk"

I use vitality and VoIP.ms and prefer the latter these days. 

I believe, though, PAETEC can also deliver sip trunks besides pots, PRI

Ldz

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 5, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Fred Goldstein  wrote:

> At 8/5/2011 05:01 PM, LeonZ  wrote:
>> We use pbx in a flash distro of asterisk works well and that distro 
>> is a no-brained.
>> 
>> Check out nerdvittles.com for great articles and pbxinaflash.com
>> 
>> Feel free to ask away
>> 
>> But I agree why use a PRI? U can use sip or iax trunks.
> 
> You can't get local circuits delivered as SIP in most places.  IAX?  NWJ.
> 
> ILECs hand off analog, but that really s*cks for PBX trunks; PRI was 
> designed for the purpose and works best.  ILECs never, ever hand off 
> SIP, but can usually do PRI.  Some CLECs do, but they often don't 
> deliver facilities outside of big cities.  At best, they deliver SIP 
> over a T1 EEL leased from the ILEC.  My clients include a bunch of 
> small rural CLECs, but they're usually the exception, the survivors 
> and the WISPs with PSTN interconnection
> 
>  --
>  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>  +1 617 795 2701 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

I work for PAETEC and we use cisco and adtran routers and those are Fxs ports 
which is also doable with ata's as well but in that case you need a sipnpbx. 
The adtran routers tax have PRI handoff as well

Ldz

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Duncan Scott  wrote:

> We've also made use of the TA 900 series stuff for T1 PRI to SIP trunk.  
> Works very well.
> 
> A 904 has 4 analog ports,
> 
> ~Duncan
> 
> On 8/5/2011 12:37 PM, Patrick Shoemaker wrote:
>> The folks on the Voiceops list seem to be fans of using Adtran for this:
>> 
>> http://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/product/4212904L1/39
>> 
>> Let me know if you try one of those out. I'd like to start doing this too. 
>> I'd want the CPE to be as dumb as possible. An asterisk box at the customer 
>> seems like a lot of complexity and room for failure modes to me.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Patrick Shoemaker
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 15:09
>> To: WISPA General List; us...@wug.cc
>> Subject: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI
>> 
>> Has anyone set these up for customers?  We were thinking about putting an 
>> Asterisk box in with a T-1 PRI interface and connecting it to the customer's 
>> equipment.
>> Would this work?
>> 
>> Any pitfalls?  Any affordable turnkey solutions for this?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

How many lines they need? 
Why not replace pbx?

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 5, 2011, at 6:09 PM, Patrick Shoemaker 
 wrote:

> Pretty sure he wants to deliver a PRI to the customer for use with their 
> non-IP-enabled PBX, then run SIP over his network.
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Shoemaker
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Leon D. Zetekoff
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 17:02
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI
> 
> We use pbx in a flash distro of asterisk works well and that distro is a 
> no-brained.
> 
> Check out nerdvittles.com for great articles and pbxinaflash.com
> 
> Feel free to ask away
> 
> But I agree why use a PRI? U can use sip or iax trunks.
> 
> More info I'd needed on what is needed.
> 
> Ldz
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Patrick Shoemaker 
>  wrote:
> 
>> The folks on the Voiceops list seem to be fans of using Adtran for this:
>> 
>> http://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/product/4212904L1/39
>> 
>> Let me know if you try one of those out. I'd like to start doing this too. 
>> I'd want the CPE to be as dumb as possible. An asterisk box at the customer 
>> seems like a lot of complexity and room for failure modes to me.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Patrick Shoemaker
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 15:09
>> To: WISPA General List; us...@wug.cc
>> Subject: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI
>> 
>> Has anyone set these up for customers?  We were thinking about putting an 
>> Asterisk box in with a T-1 PRI interface and connecting it to the customer's 
>> equipment.
>> Would this work?
>> 
>> Any pitfalls?  Any affordable turnkey solutions for this?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

We use pbx in a flash distro of asterisk works well and that distro is a 
no-brained.

Check out nerdvittles.com for great articles and pbxinaflash.com

Feel free to ask away

But I agree why use a PRI? U can use sip or iax trunks.

More info I'd needed on what is needed.

Ldz

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Patrick Shoemaker 
 wrote:

> The folks on the Voiceops list seem to be fans of using Adtran for this:
> 
> http://www.adtran.com/web/page/portal/Adtran/product/4212904L1/39
> 
> Let me know if you try one of those out. I'd like to start doing this too. 
> I'd want the CPE to be as dumb as possible. An asterisk box at the customer 
> seems like a lot of complexity and room for failure modes to me.
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Shoemaker
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 15:09
> To: WISPA General List; us...@wug.cc
> Subject: [WISPA] "Virtual" T-1 PRI
> 
> Has anyone set these up for customers?  We were thinking about putting an 
> Asterisk box in with a T-1 PRI interface and connecting it to the customer's 
> equipment.
> Would this work?
> 
> Any pitfalls?  Any affordable turnkey solutions for this?
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 6/8/2011 11:11 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:


Anyone has the link for the latest news on this?

Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com 

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143



I posted it yesterday

leon



-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1382 / Virus Database: 1511/3688 - Release Date: 06/08/11


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Very Random 5GHz Noise Problem

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 2/7/2011 12:11 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
> That's what I'm thinking but you'd think it would be happening
> continuously. Yet we'll go several months without so much as a peep and
> then boom...we are in interference hell. Had the problem again this
> weekend, started Friday night, on and off all weekend, then Sunday night
> everything is find again. I'm running out of hair to pull out of my head
> at this point!
>
> Bret
see if you can get a spectrum analyzer up there? What freqs qre you using?

When I lived in south florida we always knew when the AWACS were flying 
as signals coming through our UHF repeater (443.85/448.85) had a unique 
whining sound and the amplitude was variable which indicated the rader 
beam moving around. We'd hear it for awhile and then disappeared.

leon


-
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3428 - Release Date: 02/07/11




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] High Power RF close-proximity on tower question

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
> There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a 
> separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF 
> intensity 
> decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet and 
> 20 
> feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at 100 yards is the 
> inverse 
> of 15 squared (15X15) or the inverse of 225. Inverting 225 means that the 
> intensity at 100 yards is only 1/225th as much as at 20 feet. Scott's 
> equipment 
> is going to be exposed to 225 times greater RF energy than yours so his 
> equipment is likely to be overloaded with receiver de-sensitization while 
> your 
> equipment may be OK.
>
> The solution is to "do everything right" as Scott says. The 11 GHz equipment 
> is 
> likely so far away from the FM and TV frequencies that it is probably OK. The 
> solution for 2.4 and 5 GHz is use proper bandpass filters between the 
> antennas 
> and the equipment then test to see if the receivers seem to have full 
> sensitivity or not.
>   
Jack is 100% correct. Remember these radios do not have much filtering
in the front-ends so you have to make up for it with external accessories.

Leon
> jack
>
>
> On 12/20/2010 2:34 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
>   
>>> On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
>>>   
 Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
 and dealt with it decently.

 Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
 100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
 channel 39 I think.

 Anyone have gear running close to this kind of high-power antennas?
 Am I screwed or will I be able to have my equipment work int his RF
 environment?  Assume I did everything right (grounded metal box,
 shielded cable soldered drain wires, ferrite cores on the cables etc...).

 Thanks

 Scott Carullo
 Technical Operations
 855-FLSPEED x102
 
>> We are running 5.8 and 3.65 stuff on towers with 100KW TV systems on the
>> tower located about a 100 yards from us on another tower...no problems.
>> Probably not much difference between 100KW 20 feet or 100 yards apart.
>> 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Flaky connection

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 12/18/2010 08:45 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> 917 and 922 same results.
> Nothing else on 900, except another one of our towers.  No confict.
> Noise floor high 90s or better.
>
> Yeah, I wondered about a  900MHz phone, but it works during the day
> and not an night.
try the two lower channels. what channel size are you using? Does the
customer have a 2.4gHz wireless router? Is this pattern totally
reproducible? I.e. what time does it start and what time does it stop?

Leon
>
> On 12/18/2010 6:35 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
>> On 12/18/2010 06:28 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>> I have a new customer that is giving us fits.
>>> AP and CPE are both RouterOS with SR9.
>>> 11 Clients on the AP, this is the only one with problems.
>>> I checked it several times today and it was running signal strength -65
>>> both ways and CCQ was always above 90, often saw 100.  Customer said
>>> the
>>> performance was great.
>>> I called at dusk to say it quit working.  It did not work over night
>>> last night, either.  It will now connect with signals in the mid-60s
>>> and
>>> CCQ in the 70s.  Never stays linked more than 15 seconds.  Takes
>>> about 2
>>> seconds for it to come back.
>>> The rest of the client radios are staying connected just fine.  Signals
>>> from -56 to -72.  CCQs are all 75+ when there is traffic on the link.
>>> Any suggestions?
>>>
>> what freq is this on? what size channels? Noise floor? HAve you tried to
>> do a freq scan to see if there's anything interfering. Did you try
>> changing channels? It could be related to something at the CPE location.
>>
>> Leon
>>




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Flaky connection

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 12/18/2010 06:28 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> I have a new customer that is giving us fits.
> AP and CPE are both RouterOS with SR9.
> 11 Clients on the AP, this is the only one with problems.
> I checked it several times today and it was running signal strength -65 
> both ways and CCQ was always above 90, often saw 100.  Customer said the 
> performance was great.
> I called at dusk to say it quit working.  It did not work over night 
> last night, either.  It will now connect with signals in the mid-60s and 
> CCQ in the 70s.  Never stays linked more than 15 seconds.  Takes about 2 
> seconds for it to come back.
> The rest of the client radios are staying connected just fine.  Signals 
> from -56 to -72.  CCQs are all 75+ when there is traffic on the link.
> Any suggestions?
>   
what freq is this on? what size channels? Noise floor? HAve you tried to
do a freq scan to see if there's anything interfering. Did you try
changing channels? It could be related to something at the CPE location.

Leon




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT Laptops....

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 12/01/2010 05:27 AM, Blair Davis wrote:
> Tiger Direct has netbooks with winXP
>
> in the $250 range.  I love mine.
>
> On 11/30/2010 10:15 PM, Rogelio wrote:
>   
>> bmoldas...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Anyone have a source for new netbooks or small laptops with Win XP operating
>>> system?  Looking for something sub $600.  Using it strictly for programming
>>> equipment and running diagnostics.  Not doing anything CPU intensive.
>>> Unfortunately we are running quite a few programs that don't play well with
>>> WIN 7.
>>>   
>> Don't have a particular brand to recommend, but I would suggest looking
>> at Microcenter.  I've seen lots of good ones that fall within that category.
>> 
check eBay for used or refurb

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VOIP Provider

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 11/29/2010 10:41 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Well right.  There's 38746546574 VoIP carriers in Chicago's 358 LATA.
> 38746546571 of them only cover the contiguous AT&T portion.  Only say 3
> cover the remaining AT&T and Frontier portions of that LATA.  Obviously
> all of these numbers were made up (other than the LATA number), but I
> think I got the point across.
>
> Most places where WISPs aren't already doing VoIP, VoIP coverage is
> difficult to obtain because of a lack of coverage with national
> providers.  Take Elizabeth, IL for example.  It hooks to the Freeport,
> IL tandem.  Level 3 does have a presence in Freeport, but last I
> checked, their VoIP coverage did not extend there.  However, "local"
> companies BitWise and Aero are both there.  Both will sell you VoIP
> service, and you'll be hard pressed to find either on an aggregator's
> network.
I live in an area where Frontier is the LEC not a BOC. Only a handful of 
carriers are in those rate centers. When I needed numbers I got local 
numbers from the Reading, PA rate center since that local calling area 
included the area I am in. When I moved within my same town a year ago I 
ported my number to Service Electric and get my local dial tone through 
them and haven't been happier plus I'm not constrained with the poor DSL 
at the new location. In any event, the key is if a provider doesn't 
service your late rate center look upstream for the next major one that 
includes you local calling area.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VOIP Provider

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 11/29/2010 9:07 PM, Liam Cummings wrote:


We are looking to start offering VOIP but are having a hard time 
finding a provider that offers a service at a price that we can markup 
and resell. Anyone know of a good VOIP provider?



check out vitelity and voip.ms

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: Printer recommendations

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 11/23/2010 09:34 AM, Robert West wrote:
> Epson are very good quality, actually.  I just always hated waiting for them
> to decide to get ready to print!  They remind me of having a cat..
>   
This one is a little noisy but the mechanism is fast. We also have a
Lexmark c543DN color laser with an extra paper tray. I've had good luck
with that as well.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OT: Printer recommendations

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 11/23/2010 09:01 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I've used HP OfficeJets for most of the previous decade.  I've used HP 
> printers period for...  20 years?
>
> However, the OfficeJets continue to have paper handling and other 
> issues.  They are used far less than their service duty allows.  I also 
> have a problem with the printer disappearing on some computers.
>
> I was recommended to Dell all in one printers, but their user interface 
> for the scanning, faxing, etc. features is horrible.
>
> I need something that works, does copy, fax, scan, print, and is easy 
> enough for non-techies to use.  Recommendations?
>   
I was and still am a fan of Epson. We just got rid of a Photosmart 8550
we've had for years because the ink mechanism kept jamming and the paper
feed was skewing. We replaced it with a Workforce 630 All-in-one. I've
had Epson straight printers and have multiple Epson scanners here all
with good luck.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Office Phones

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

I use PBX in a FLASH...

check out pbxinaflash.com, nerdvittles.com

Leon

On 11/17/2010 10:06 AM, Ryan Spott wrote:
Purchase PBXtra  (full 
support, excellent system, totally plug and chug)


or use  if you don't want to pay anything.

ryan


On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Steve Barnes > wrote:


I had a direct Lightening hit to our office 2 weeks ago and My
AT&T phone system is now acting up and loses calls all the time.

I am planning to go to VOX and get away from my pots lines for the
most part.

I would like others recommendation for a in office phone system
for 5 users only but I need a good voice mail and ability to have
cordless phones.  I would also like the ability to do remote
transfer to a cell or a offsite VoIP extension.

Last part I truthfully do not have time to spend 40 hours learning
Asterisk.

*Steve Barnes*

RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service 







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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] OLD COMPUTER Was: UBNT AUTO Channel

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

I built a big board used a Z80 and had 64kb ram; had four 8" SSSD flops 
on it. GOt the cabinet and flops from where I worked at the time 
(racal-Milgo) from stuff that was mothballed. This was circa 1980-1981.


leon

On 11/12/2010 11:05 AM, RickG wrote:

Then I switched to using the video tape...

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Tom DeReggi 
mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>> wrote:


Gotta luv the data cassette tape. Portable storage, even fit in
shirt pocket. It could have been worse, it could have been bulky
8-track :-)
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message -
*From:* RickG 
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:43 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel

Tom, it gets better as I go back further in time. I had to use
a cassette tape for storage with my TRS-80 - no floppy ;)

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Tom DeReggi
mailto:wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>>
wrote:

WOW, 10MB hard drive, you had the good stuff.  My Laptop
only had  Floppy drives. One for the OS, and one for data..
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

- Original Message -
*From:* RickG 
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Sent:* Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:33 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel

LOL! Here we go again with the "dating game" :)
My first "laptop" was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Portable
It was really cool but weighed as much as sewing
machine which was the term we gave it.
-RickG

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Forbes Mercy
mailto:forbes.me...@wabroadband.com>> wrote:

My first "LAP"top was a Kaypro 10, thank goodness
I didn't have to pay baggage on it since it was as
large as my travel bag... monochrome green screen
with a huge 10MB hard drive and ran hot enough to
fry an egg.


On 11/11/2010 8:09 AM, Mark Nash wrote:

Haha... You young people don't remember the term
WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)... A term
for applications that made it so that documents
actually LOOKED on your screen like they were
going to print (anyone remember Kaypro & WordStar?).
I had a revolutionary idea technological in the
early 90's... I called it WYGIWYM... What you get
is what you MEAN.  I'da been a qua-jillionaire
but I didn't execute.  Oh well.

- Original Message -
*From:* Scott Carullo

*To:* WISPA General List

*Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:35 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel

I'd pay a little more when they come out with
the auto-install feature...

Maybe one day - Auto-Everything.   Just take
it out of the box and plug it in.  It figures
out what to do where...

They can call it AIRverywhere

Scott Carullo
Technical Operations
855-FLSPEED x102





*From*: "Robert West"
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>>
*Sent*: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:31 PM
*To*: "WISPA General List"
 
*Subject*: [WISPA] UBNT AUTO Channel

FYI

I’m hesitant to jump into UBNT Beta firmware
for large scale deployment, lesson learned
the hard way………  But the latest includes
channel hopping and Auto channel.  I’ve had
ongoing issues with random interference and
every couple of weeks or so have had to
change my frequencies on pretty much all my
UBNT radios.  But I took the plunge with this
   

Re: [WISPA] Telescoping Mast

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 11/05/2010 11:53 PM, Liam Cummings wrote:
>
> Anyone know of a place where I can get some sort of telescoping mast
> that I can tow behind me in my truck or maybe just put on my tow
> hitch? Oh yeah and it needs to be cheap too.  I want to start using
> something like this for our site surveys because it would be much
> easier than getting out the telescoping pole we use and having someone
> hold it steady with a radio on it. I was thinking of just making one
> myself but even the telescoping pole itself is hard to find.
>
why not look for a used crank-up tower from a ham?

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Can't get my 100MB

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 10/28/2010 1:50 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 1:25 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> We've been able to test to 80+ mbps to the Seattle speakeasy site.
>> marlon
> check myspeed.visualware.com and go to the dulles, VA which is right off
> the Ashburn peering point. their speed test tool is more accurate and
> uses sockets.
You can also deploy these servers on your own boxes they are java based

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Can't get my 100MB

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 10/28/2010 1:25 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> We've been able to test to 80+ mbps to the Seattle speakeasy site.
> marlon
check myspeed.visualware.com and go to the dulles, VA which is right off 
the Ashburn peering point. their speed test tool is more accurate and 
uses sockets.

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Today's FCC Digest:

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  ERRATUM - UNLICENSED OPERATIONS IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS, ADDITIONAL
SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND.
Issued an Erratum correcting Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
10-174, released September 13, 2010. (Dkt No.  02-380 04-186 ). Action
by:  Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology by ERRATUM.  OET
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302279A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302279A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-302279A1.txt




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 we sent someone out in the field with a mirror and looked for the 
reflections


On 10/19/2010 11:28 AM, Mark Nash wrote:
(sent a message a few minutes ago but through strange indicators I 
think it may not have sent out...sorry if it's a double-post)

I'm trying to have 1 crew and not do the 2nd trip to the first tower.

- Original Message -
*From:* Josh Luthman 
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:28 AM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] PtP Dish Alignment

You would need more people then.  You can't align the dish without
both radios being powered.

You could do two 3 man crews, one at each site.  Both install at
the same time and they should finish around the same time frame. 
Align before coming down at all.


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


On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Greg Ihnen mailto:os10ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:

It looks like for around $150 you could get binoculars with a
built in magnetic compass that you see through the binoculars.
Could you use the binoculars to find an object on the horizon
on the right azimuth and then point the dish there?

Greg

On Oct 19, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Mark Nash wrote:


Question:  What tools do you use to blindly put up the first
end of a ptp without having a visual on the other side?
Details:
When deploying ptp dishes... One team doing both ends at
different times.
The first dish must be aligned without a connecting radio at
the other end.
We know how to get uptilt/downtilt/azimuth from Radio Mobile.
Uptilt/downtilt is easy to do with a simple gauge.  Azimuth
is a different story.  If you can see the site that you're
aiming for, no big deal, but what if you can't?
We have a number of backhaul upgrades to do in the next few
months, and we have alot of fog here in the mornings this
time of year.






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Not this again

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 10/14/2010 2:33 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
> I'm sure some people will be saying "oh not this discussion again" but I've 
> just got to ask. L-Com is selling "FCC certified systems" and they go into 
> detail to explain that their system are available without license or special 
> requirement because it's not just an amplifier but rather a complete system. 
> Clicking on a link in their email brings you here 
> http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=25975&CMP=101410. I assumed this was an AP 
> with amplifier and antenna which the F
You could always ask them for the FCC Cert #

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Brute Force Attack on Mikrotik Gateway

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 10/02/2010 05:58 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:


New laptops don't have java.

Flash is one library and takes second to install.

Launch speeds are of no comparison, flash is way faster.  Takes a lot 
of time to warm up the virtual engine.



I find flash a PITA. java is one download off java.com; not a biggie there.

IMHO

leon
On Oct 2, 2010 5:32 PM, "Jeromie Reeves" > wrote:

> I have to question: Why would a new laptop not use it? And how do you
> figure flash is lighter?
>
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Josh Luthman
> mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> 
wrote:
>> Jon was right - just loaded up 5.0rc1 and they added "webfig".  
Format is

>> very much that of Winbox and looks very good at a glance!
>>
>> Webbox is still there and it is still bad.
>>
>> Java is way too slow and not very portable (in the sense a new 
laptop won't

>> use it).  Flash is easier and lighter.  HTML works 99.99% of the time.



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Brute Force Attack on Mikrotik Gateway

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 I asked them about a Java client a long time ago and they nixed it.. 
Said there was a Windoze client and it could run under Wine. But I was 
looking at other platforms. The biggest problem with Mikrotik is their 
tunnelvision and unwillingness to look outside of the box IMHO


Leon

On 10/2/2010 3:04 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
Or Java would be nice. But really anything that is cross platform 
would be good. Then I wouldn't have to run Parallels or Fusion all day.


Greg
On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It doesn't answer anything.  You can't configure anything.  It screws 
up what you have set.  Hate it.  I would like to see an html copy of 
winbox, but that's a dream.


On Oct 2, 2010 12:33 PM, "Robert West" > wrote:

> Ah.. I always use Winbox. Tried Webbox a few times when I "had to" but
> wasn't comfortable with it at all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
] On

> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 11:18 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brute Force Attack on Mikrotik Gateway
>
>
>
> The MT webbox causes cancer it is so terrible.
>
> On Oct 2, 2010 9:08 AM, "Greg Ihnen" > wrote:
>> That script should be the MT default when one checks the "protect 
router"

> check box in the web UI.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2010, at 8:33 AM, Robert West wrote:
>>
>>> Checked the logs this morning and guess who was back at it 
Was trying
> to do a brute force attack from yet another IP but that script from 
Butch

> swatted him like a fly. Worked like a charm!
>>>
>>> Thanks to both you and Butch, he be gone.
>>>
>>> Bob-
>>>
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
] On

> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
>>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 10:38 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brute Force Attack on Mikrotik Gateway
>>>
>>> Compliments of Butch Evans
>>>
>>> /ip firewal filt
>>> add action=accept chain=forward comment="drop ssh brute forcers"
> disabled=\
>>> no dst-port=22 protocol=tcp src-address-list=ssh_blacklist
>>> add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=ssh_blacklist \
>>> address-list-timeout=1w3d chain=forward comment="" 
connection-state=new \

>>> disabled=no dst-port=22 protocol=tcp src-address-list=ssh_stage3
>>> add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=ssh_stage3 \
>>> address-list-timeout=1m chain=forward comment="" 
connection-state=new \

>>> disabled=no dst-port=22 protocol=tcp src-address-list=ssh_stage2
>>> add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=ssh_stage2 \
>>> address-list-timeout=1m chain=forward comment="" 
connection-state=new \

>>> disabled=no dst-port=22 protocol=tcp src-address-list=ssh_stage1
>>> add action=add-src-to-address-list address-list=ssh_stage1 \
>>> address-list-timeout=1m chain=forward comment="" 
connection-state=new \
>>> disabled=no dst-port=22 protocol=tcp 
src-address-list=!heavysshservers

>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Robert West 
mailto:robert.w...@just-micro.com>>

> wrote:
>>> Then we'll just send the pigeons over to poop on them.
>>>
>>> Easy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
] On

> Behalf Of RickG
>>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:29 PM
>>> To: Tom Sharples; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Brute Force Attack on Mikrotik Gateway
>>>
>>> I like it but what if the ip is being masqueraded?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Tom Sharples 
mailto:tsharp...@qorvus.com>>

> wrote:
>>> I've often wondered, is it legal for the receipient of this sort of
> thing, to retailiate with e.g. ping or curl storms?
>>>
>>> Tom S.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Robert West
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 2:57 PM
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Brute Force Attack on Mikrotik Gateway
>>>
>>> Just had to deal with a brute force attack on a MT router acting as a
> gateway.
>>>
>>> Came from these two IP addresses..
>>>
>>> 59.42.10.38
>>>
>>> 61.155.5.247
>>>
>>> Looked them up, they turn out to be pretty common for this sort 
of thing.
> Added a firewall rule to drop them and they are no longer filling 
my log.

>>>
>>> Some may want to do the same for these jokers.
>>>
>>> Robert West
>>> Just Micro Digital Services Inc.
>>> 740-335-7020
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 10.0.1120 / Virus Database: 422/3172 - Release Date: 10/02/10




--

Re: [WISPA] VOIP PHONE 10 Mhz

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 09/22/2010 10:18 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> DECT phone in the install rig with a 10mhz radio and a ATA.
or A DECT IP phone and 10 mhz radio. I have a Siemens A580IP base + 
handsets works fine...cuts one item out of the picture.

leon
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Josh Luthman
>   wrote:
>> 10mhz will be rough.  Maybe an ns2 an voip phone?
>>
>> One installer used a cisco phone for this.  He liked it, made me smile.
>>
>> On Sep 22, 2010 1:11 PM, "Charles N Wyble"  wrote:
>>
>>   SIP app on Android or iPhone?
>>
>> On 09/22/2010 10:09 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
>>> I am looking for a Wireless VOIP Phone that my instal...
>>




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 189 mile wifi link- 5.8G Ubiquiti

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 09/23/2010 12:28 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> Any hams on the list who know if the XR5 and XR3 meet Part 97
> rules?  I think the high-speed digital emission is legal on the 3.5
> and 5.7 GHz ham bands... and these would be neat to have for VHF contests!
I don't see that as a problem

Leon WA4ZLW
> At 9/22/2010 06:49 PM, you wrote:
>> Pretty impressive for 5.8Ghz. I'm aware of numerous long 2.4G links, but
>> this is clearly a record for 5.8G.
>>
>> http://www.gizmag.com/go/7878/
>>
>> It was even over water, all be it, it was also on top of a mountain a mile
>> high :-)
>> They said they pulled off 5 mbps.
>>
>> Its funny, I remember conversatiosn when SR5s first came out, where some
>> people stated they wouldn't risk using them for long links over 10miles or
>> so, because a low price product likely was lower grade.  I got to say, way
>> to go Ubiquiti!




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] From todays Daily DIgest

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  Released:  09/15/2010.  WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON
BUSINESS BROADBAND MARKETPLACE. (DA No.  10-1743). (Dkt No 10-188 ).
Comments Due:  10/15/2010. Reply Comments Due:  11/04/2010.  WCB .
Contact:  Heather Hendrickson at (202) 418-7295, email: Heather
hendrick...@fcc.gov
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1743A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1743A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1743A1.txt

  FCC LAUNCHES LICENSE VIEW.   Public can explore millions of licenses
through easy-to-use online dashboard.  News Release. News Media Contact:
Jen Howard at (202) 418-0506, email:jen.how...@fcc.gov   OCH
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301470A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301470A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301470A1.txt




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] MSTV ex parte to 04-186

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020912163



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] FIbertower et al Ex Parte met with Commissioner Bakers legal advisor

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016054561



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] check this out from the NYTimes

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/technology/13wifi.html?_r=2

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] speed test

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 09/12/2010 07:29 PM, RickG wrote:
OK for all your speed hungry customers that want to run speed tests to 
speedtest.net  and dslreports.com 
 - the question is: what do you do? I've never 
really had good results with off net speed tests even when removing 
the load and running directly t from my laptop to my fiber connection. 
But I get these people who think they're not getting what they pay for :(

-RickG
I've always used myspeed.visualware.com and use the DUlles, VA site 
which is a hop or so off the AShburn peering point. They also use 
sockets which is more accurate than http. You can always install it on 
your own network for your customers.


Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] I-80 Dark fiber

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/31/2010 11:58 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

   Some of you already know about this, but I would like to pipe up again
about a buy in opportunity on some new dark fiber construction from
Chicago to New York.  Too much for any one WISP, but maybe those of you
along the I-80 corridor (it's actually on train track right of way)
would be interested in teaming together on this effort.

I have no financial interest in this, nor do I have experience with
these operators.  I'm just trying to get my fellow WISPs up to the next
level.
Met-Ed has dark fiber in its six or eight state territory from midwest 
to NYC and DC and through PA, Ohio. I beleive Directlink Technologies in 
Reading has the rights or bought them. You might want to check them out.


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3097 - Release Date: 08/27/10 
02:34:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] (DIRECTLY) Connecting two wireless with a RF cable

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 08/30/2010 06:39 PM, Paolo Di Francesco wrote:
> well, just using the usual things for non usual situations.
>
> I was considering: if I have to do more than 100 meters ethernet what
> would I use? well 100m of LMR400 can be a solution in some cases (yeah I
> know fiber, but as I said I was curious about RF cables).
>
> In a previous post I saw somebody talking about ethernet over coaxial,
> so this is like the same, but with no copper/RJ45 connector. It's
> directly into the router. I am not looking for speed, I was considering
> that even with 200m or 300m LMR400 cables you could do the same job.
>


to show my age...ethernet started on coax; RG8/u (thick-net) or RG58/u 
(thin-net). 50 ohm terminators were on both sides. Connections were made 
with BNC or in the case of RG8 I think it was an AUI connector. BNC T 
connectors were used on each thin-net card.

Also, who remember token-ring? I have a PCMCIA adapter for it. :-)

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] VPN

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/24/2010 10:09 AM, Jeremie Chism wrote:

I have a customer on my network with a netgear VPN router. For some reason now 
the VPN drops about every hour. There is no problem with the Internet, just the 
VPN. The customer is setup as a 1to1 nat. I am thinking it might be a nat issue 
but looking for suggestions.

how long is the tunnel set to be up for?

leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3088 - Release Date: 08/22/10 
14:35:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vonage

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 08/19/2010 03:57 PM, Martha Huizenga wrote:

Ok, so the pingtest's he did today are:

ping 36 jitter 50 packet loss 1%
then
ping 12 jitter 2 - packet loss 2%

These were done 1 minute or so apart.

There were some other suggestions about putting the ATA in front of 
the router. Unfortunately since he has two Vonage systems this is only 
possible for one of these systems. He has two because one is home and 
the other is business, so it's not possible to get one that has 3 
lines since he doesn't want to mix business with personal expenses. I 
doubt one box can be split into two accounts.


I haven't tried the port or protocol changes yet. Working on that next.
As others have said I would 86 all the extra NATs and have one router 
and disable NAT and stuff everywhere else. You can get 4 port and higher 
ATAs/gateways. Or you could roll out an Asterisk pbx (PiAF distro my 
favorite) and run everything through that. You could also get IP phones 
and there one phone you can have many line registrations. There are many 
options on the voice side. On the data end, eliminate all the riff-raff.


Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Vonage

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 08/19/2010 03:31 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote:
> Agreed. If the ata has a built in router I try to connect it in front of the 
> customer router to take advantage of the built in qos.
that won't help. you can't do QOS over the internet only within a 
private network

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/18/2010 12:18 PM, ~NGL~ wrote:
That is our next step, to remove all clients except 2 from the Mac 
list in the AP Access Control List

*From:* Justin Wilson 

*Sent:* Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:01 AM
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

   If it were me, and the problem happens anytime of the day I
would disassociate all the customers in the middle of the night
(providing you see the problem then too) and turn them on a few at
a time until the problem re-appears.  If having a just a few on
still has the same results it's either frequency, those handful,
or hardware issues.
-- 
Justin Wilson 


is this a bridged or routed network? One thing you might also want to 
try is PPPoE authentication to get rid of the broadcast traffic 
interfering with data. 5 mHz channels is really a slow channel as others 
mentioned with all those CPEs. We only went down to 10 mHz channels that 
worked well once other things were fixed (like routers/bridged)


Leon

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3066 - Release Date: 08/12/10 
02:34:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/18/2010 12:00 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:

On 8/18/2010 11:56 AM, ~NGL~ wrote:

We have changed all wiring on the tower.
Floor Noise is the same 90-dbm
We have changed channels several times

whats the data rates on the backhaul and the CPEs?

also what are signal levels from CPEs and backhauls?

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3066 - Release Date: 08/12/10 
02:34:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/18/2010 11:56 AM, ~NGL~ wrote:

We have changed all wiring on the tower.
Floor Noise is the same 90-dbm
We have changed channels several times

whats the data rates on the backhaul and the CPEs?


*From:* Justin Wilson 
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:41 AM
*To:* WISPA General List 
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

   Things I would check:

1.Do you have a customer(s) not at the best modulation rate?
One customer could be bringing the whole AP to a crawl, especially
when they start pulling traffic.  Look at customer re-transmits
and see if you see any excessive problems.  Make those customers
better or turn them off for the benefit of the whole AP.

2.Have you tried changing frequencies. 900 is almost voodoo.
 Does your noise floor change? Has it changed since 10 days ago?

3.Have you tried changing feed cable as part of the re-wire
process?

Justin




No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3066 - Release Date: 08/12/10 
02:34:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/18/2010 11:48 AM, ~NGL~ wrote:

Quarter 5 MHZ
908/5 MHZ

backhaul is on 900 too?

--
From: "Leon D. Zetekoff"
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster


  On 8/18/2010 11:31 AM, ~NGL~ wrote:

All clients
Changed channels several times
NGL

what channel sizes? What freqs are you on for CPE and AP?

Leon



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3066 - Release Date: 08/12/10 
02:34:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Major Disaster

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 8/18/2010 11:31 AM, ~NGL~ wrote:

All clients
Changed channels several times
NGL

what channel sizes? What freqs are you on for CPE and AP?

Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3066 - Release Date: 08/12/10 
02:34:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Broadband work with Indian Reservation

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 On 08/13/2010 04:55 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
The reservation in our area put an actual ordinance in effect that 
bans all "outdoor antennas" on any structure (including their homes, 
sheds, garages, barns, etc.). We still do installs there (along with 2 
or 3 other providers), but technically they could enforce it.

FCC preemption here...Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] IPPay

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 07/23/2010 03:08 PM, Robert West wrote:
> I tried but they insisted that I give them all of my personal information in
> order to sign up.  We are a C Corp.  My attorney has sternly told me to NOT
> mix anything person into the corporation so we were not able to do any
my old boss just said the same thinghe passed...wonder where this is 
coming from?

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DHCP Question

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

  On 07/22/2010 08:38 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> I have a customer that has a RB411R as the CPE.  It is running DHCP
> server on the ethernet interface.
> They have a Belkin 3129 SOHO router that gets its address from the RB.
> At least once per day the router will drop its address and get a new
> one.  During this time the router and the customer's computers show the
> Internet is down (the router has a red/green light on the front.)
> I have replaced the radio and the POE-24i the powers it.  I thought
> maybe the Cat5 was kinked at the CPE end so I replace the RJ45.
> What am I missing that would cause a device to request a DHCP address?
>
whats the lease time on the rb411 dhcp server?



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik question

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 7/1/2010 2:00 PM, Butch Evans wrote:

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 12:08 -0400, Scott Reed wrote:
   

You do, however, need to know what is in the change logs, because you do
not always know it is broken.
 

This is my second biggest complaint about Mikrotik.  Their changelogs
really SUCK!  The first biggest complaint is not fit for a public list.
   
Agreed. I've beat them up to add more formal x.y.z type versioning and 
date/timestamps/ SO far it looks like only a date stamp. Not the way 
real software engineering is done.

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2962 - Release Date: 06/25/10 
02:35:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband SURVEY

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 5/27/2010 12:13 PM, Rick Harnish wrote:

Done

Please take the survey.  http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XC5DF7F  There are 10
questions on two pages.  You must answer all statements with Agree,
Undecided or Disagree to proceed.

I would have liked to have asked whether the responders are a member or a
non-member but we are only allowed 10 questions per survey and I didn't have
room.

T
   

Hi RIck...can the grammar be improved?

leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2897 - Release Date: 05/26/10 
02:25:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik routing/queing problem

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 5/27/2010 10:04 AM, RickG wrote:

Auto neg can cause problems.

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Kevin Sullivan
  wrote:
   

No, it's a gig link, set to auto neg.
 



auto-neg definitely the problem especially if non gig on other side. 
Lock both sides down


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2897 - Release Date: 05/26/10 
02:25:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Hamvention

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 5/17/2010 10:23 AM, Blake Bowers wrote:

If you have a copper ground rod in the radome then you make the antenna both
directional, and subject to a high VSWR.

Radome antennas like the one pictured do splinter - it is one of those
LMR facts of life.  ANY antenna subject to a direct strike can be
damaged.   The best antenna I have ever used for LMR is a DB224,
the design of which makes it totally unacceptable for WISP work.
(Unless you have a two way radio system in your installers
trucks LOL)

http://www.wiscointl.com/decibel/dipoles/db224.htm

This is the same style of antenna that dot many of the old AT&T
long lines towers across the country - I have never found one bad
at one of the AT&T sites.

For that matter, my MCI sites had radome antennas like the one
pictured, no copper ground rod going up through the antenna (I
can't even find one like that after some checking around) and I
never found one of those bad either.

That is a testament to proper grounding techniques, and a good
ground system at the base.

Lightning could really care less about your location on the tower.
Often times antennas on the side, half way down the tower will
be destroyed, and a similar antenna on the top is fine.

http://www.polyphaser.com/  when it was privately owned had a
fantastic book - "the grounds for lightning protection".  The owner
had spent his life working in the field, and packed that knowledge
into the book.  If you ever have a chance to get it - do so.

Another great source, but less info as to the WHY, is Motorola
R-56 standards.  EVERYONE should have a copy - there is more
knowledge stuffed into that book than the encyclpedia, when it
comes to installing equipment at a tower site.


Bottom line - if lightning wants your antenna, it matters not where it
is located on the tower.



Don't take your organs to heaven,
heaven knows we need them down here!
Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.

- Original Message -
From: "Kurt Fankhauser"
To:; "'WISPA General List'"
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hamvention


   

Which part is a myth?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of lakel...@gbcx.net
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hamvention

That is a myth.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Kurt Fankhauser"
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 01:36:07
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hamvention

You can't use a fiberglass omni at the top of a tower and expect it to
survive a strike unless it has a copper groundrod built inside of it
protruding from the top in which it was designed to take a strike. Learned
this from various HAM radio operators. Only 2.4ghz omni I know of that has
a
metal frame and can survive direct strikes are slotted waveguides such as
the various H-POL omni's you see. If I'm going to use a VPOL omni I make
sure I'm not the tallest guy on the tower.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:16 PM
To: wa4...@arrl.net; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hamvention

Ya, the pop (pun intended:) is growing so hopefully it gets sectors soon!

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff
  wrote:
 

On 05/16/2010 07:08 PM, RickG wrote:
   

I'm sorry Bob! I was slacking all night on a water tank after it took
a direct hit. Picture of omni attached. Even with LP in place, it
melted the cabling down to the enclosure and burned up everything in
it! I got it back up&  running by dropping temporary cables down the
side of the tower. A dozen man hours later - it's all new. Maybe next
year!

 

We had a multi-band comet VHF/UHF for our club repeater on the top of a
10 story building in Coral Springs a number of years ago and it got
blown apart similarly. They work good but explode like that when hit.

Leon

   
I believe the Comet I mentioned was s VHF only - don't remember. It was 
replaced with a folded dipole array like was pictured. Eventually, after 
I moved to PA, it was replaced with a VHF staionmaster.


Even with good grounding, lighting will do it's damage. I don't believe 
our antenna got a direct strike but very close. It must have hit the 
building possibly even the antenna. What makes me think not is the 
repeater stuff still worked fine once we put up a new antenna.


Good grounding is a must as is good protection.

Leon WA4ZLW
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2878 - Release Date: 05/16/10

Re: [WISPA] Hamvention

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 05/16/2010 07:08 PM, RickG wrote:
> I'm sorry Bob! I was slacking all night on a water tank after it took
> a direct hit. Picture of omni attached. Even with LP in place, it
> melted the cabling down to the enclosure and burned up everything in
> it! I got it back up & running by dropping temporary cables down the
> side of the tower. A dozen man hours later - it's all new. Maybe next
> year!
>   
We had a multi-band comet VHF/UHF for our club repeater on the top of a
10 story building in Coral Springs a number of years ago and it got
blown apart similarly. They work good but explode like that when hit.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Customer Speed Tests

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 05/13/2010 06:11 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> As much as I love Java...I don't want my installer to spend 10 minutes
> installing/updating/rebooting for the JRE.
>   
you dont need to reboot and most folks have java already on systems.
it's a small java applet. server runs java and you can buy it for your
own uses.

Leon
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
> continue that counts.”
> --- Winston Churchill
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
>   
>>Just keep on top of the speed test mini.  It expires on a semi-regular
>> basis.  All you have to do is go back and re-download the newest one.
>> --
>> Justin Wilson 
>> http://www.mtin.net/blog
>> Wisp Consulting ­ Tower Climbing ­ Network Support
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Josh Luthman 
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 17:20:23 -0400
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer Speed Tests
>>
>> Speed test mini is probably the best.
>>
>> http://www.speedtest.net/mini.php
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> ³Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
>> continue that counts.²
>> --- Winston Churchill
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Carl Shivers 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> >From time to time I get customer complaints when they use various offsite
>>> speed tests. Does anyone know of good speed test software that I can set up
>>> on my network?
>>>
>>>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Customer Speed Tests

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 05/13/2010 05:16 PM, Carl Shivers wrote:
> >From time to time I get customer complaints when they use various offsite
> speed tests. Does anyone know of good speed test software that I can set up
> on my network?
>   
yes go to visualware.com - it's very accurate and uses sockets instead
of http for more accuracy. they have versions that do voip testing as well.

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 5MHz Channel Drawbacks?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 05/09/2010 05:33 PM, Robert West wrote:
> I have an area that's developed some noise and after watching the spectrum 
> analyzer all week I'm thinking of going to 5MHz channels there.  I'm using 
> 5GHz UBNT APs with all MIMO CPEs.  I did a test with 5MHz width and was 
> hitting 32.5mbps TX, 13mbps RX throughput so that part is cool but are there 
> any drawbacks with going with 5MHz channels???  
>   
have u tried 10 mHz channels?

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Ever wonder how bad RB333/444 stacked cards interfere?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 04/26/2010 08:12 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Are you bridging at the AP and CPE, and does it work?
>
> Something something that was brought to my attention is that UBQT has Iperf 
> built in at teh command line. So technically, if we used UBQT at the CPE and 
> MT as AP, we could still do speed tests easilly, since all our MT APs plug 
> into our proprietary cell site routers which have Iperf.
>
> But does it bridge OK? We dont really need the MT AP. What we do need is 5-9 
> port CPEs everyonce in a while, which locks us into the MT solutions in some 
> locations, or we ahve to add one more component of failure. Truthfully, that 
> is probably what we are going to start doing, where we decide to use UBQT. 
> Run UBQT radios, then put a MT router at the end where we need 5-9 ports. 
> They are pretty inexpensive now, its not that big a deal anymore to 
> duplicate expense.
>   
Hey Tom...didya ever think of letting the customer supply there own
"router" behind the RF CPE?

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 04/26/2010 03:03 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
> Correct. Ham radio can not be used for any commercial purpose.
> WISP-type operation for money is not legal. A ham radio club could
> operate an Internet-connected access point for their own use (like for
> emergency communications, experimentation, etc.) but the access point
> and each end-point (CPE) would need to be under the control of a
> licensed amateur radio operator.
it depends...you can, over an autopatch, order a pizza from a take-out
or call your doctor if you are late for an appt. As long as there is no
pecuniary interest to the control op/trustee is the key.

So IMHO an amateur could put up an access point and as long as he doesnt
have  apecuniary interest (i.e. subscription fees) that would work BUT
the CPE would also have to be an amateur and likewise there but there
shouldn't be any issue browsing the web and even doing transactions over
that circuit. I;m not trying to open a can of worms but this is info
I've gleaned over the years.

Our repeater club in Florida, still exists (when I moved to PA I passed
on the truseteeship), was always a front runner on licensing issues as
well as a wide interpretation of the rules.

Leon WA4ZLW
>
> jack
>
>
> Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>> Aside the moral issue with that, is it not 'no commercial
>> transactions' when operating under ham rules?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jack Unger  wrote:
>>   
>>> Yes; a very dirty and disreputable way. Any ham who tries this should
>>> remember that "What goes around comes around".
>>>
>>> jack K6XS
>>>
>>> Tom Sharples wrote:
>>>
>>> For those WISPs who are licensed hams, that certainly suggests a unique way
>>> to get rid of your competitors who aren't :-)
>>>
>>> Tom S.
>>> WA6HAS
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Leon D. Zetekoff" 
>>> To: 
>>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/26/2010 10:06 AM, Philip Dorr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> HAMs have a secondary license (Lower than Licensed, but higher than
>>> unlicensed). HAMs can use 2390MHz-2450MHz and put out a max EIRP of
>>> 1.5kW, but in that RF range (2.4GHz) that is called a "microwave
>>> oven".  HAMs can also use 5650MHz-5925MHz.
>>>
>>> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Hambands_color.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not a secondary license but a secondary allocation. We are still
>>> licensed. As I mentioned previously, spread spectrum emission types are
>>> not allow that much "boost" but other emission types are.
>>>
>>> Leon
>>>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/26/2010 10:06 AM, Philip Dorr wrote:

HAMs have a secondary license (Lower than Licensed, but higher than
unlicensed). HAMs can use 2390MHz-2450MHz and put out a max EIRP of
1.5kW, but in that RF range (2.4GHz) that is called a "microwave
oven".  HAMs can also use 5650MHz-5925MHz.

http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Hambands_color.pdf
   
It's not a secondary license but a secondary allocation. We are still 
licensed. As I mentioned previously, spread spectrum emission types are 
not allow that much "boost" but other emission types are.


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2836 - Release Date: 04/26/10 
02:31:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/26/2010 9:29 AM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:

On 4/27/2010 9:11 AM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
Correct my if I'm wrong but don't HAMS have use of the lower portion 
of the

2.4ghz band???

And if so they are not subject to the EIRP limits and equipment
certification that we are, so in theory a HAM could put up a 1000 watt
transmitter and un-intentionally cause us interference and there is 
nothing
we can do about it because a HAM is a licensed user and we are 
UN-LICENSED.

Kurt--absolutely correct on both accounts.

Leon


Also, we can not use 1kW with spread spectrum but other emissions yes

Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2836 - Release Date: 04/26/10 
02:31:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/27/2010 9:11 AM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:

Correct my if I'm wrong but don't HAMS have use of the lower portion of the
2.4ghz band???

And if so they are not subject to the EIRP limits and equipment
certification that we are, so in theory a HAM could put up a 1000 watt
transmitter and un-intentionally cause us interference and there is nothing
we can do about it because a HAM is a licensed user and we are UN-LICENSED.
   

Kurt--absolutely correct on both accounts.

Leon

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralphlists
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:27 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII

Not exactly correct.

You do not want to run under the ISP service!  It does not allow data.
It is for devices that do things with RF energy- not ones that "communicate"


There is a good old example of a wireless integrator who was using illegal 1
watt amps on Cisco 340 access points to distribute Internet in Post
Properties apartments. He interfered with Hams (they were running a repeater
with a 2.4 GHz licensed input) and an FCC investigation ensued.  When he got
caught with the amps and a fine was discussed, the operator got deeper and
deeper into his lies by saying that he wasn't Part 15, but ISM.  Since he
had no ISM license, the fine then went to something like 10 grand a day.
Suddenly he decided maybe Part 15 with illegal amps was a little easier on
the wallet.  Anyway, the provider went out of business.

You can still probably find some stuff about it by Googling. The Company was
Darwin Networks and the place was Houston TX.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:38 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] ISM vs UNII

Two different sets of regulations. ISM has more permitted uses and
generally looser rules. UNII has more restrictions but more spectrum is
available than just ISM.

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com


On 4/24/2010 10:20 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
   

Whats the diff?



Gino A. Villarini

g...@aeronetpr.com

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

787.273.4143




 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2836 - Release Date: 04/26/10 
02:31:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Airspan consent decree

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 04/15/2010 03:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> So their firmware allowed people to disable DFS in the 5.4 GHz band.  They 
> got a $10k fine and fixed the issue.
>
> Correct?
>   
looks that way mike but at least the feds are going after folks doing
the wrong thing
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ------
> From: "Leon D. Zetekoff" 
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:18 AM
> To: 
> Subject: [WISPA] Airspan consent decree
>
>   
>>  AIRSPAN NETWORKS (ISRAEL), LTD.   Adopted a Consent Decree in this
>> proceeding. Terminated the Investigation. Action by:  Chief, Spectrum
>> Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted:  04/14/2010 by
>> Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 10-618).  EB
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-618A1.doc
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-618A1.pdf
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-618A1.txt
>> 



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Airspan consent decree

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

 AIRSPAN NETWORKS (ISRAEL), LTD.   Adopted a Consent Decree in this
proceeding. Terminated the Investigation. Action by:  Chief, Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted:  04/14/2010 by
Order/Consent Decree. (DA No. 10-618).  EB
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-618A1.doc
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-618A1.pdf
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-618A1.txt

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2812 - Release Date: 04/15/10 
02:31:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Broadband Fiasco Followup

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 04/13/2010 06:50 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
> Apparently my tirade about broadband mapping reached a few ears in 
> Washington, as the NE PSC called me this afternoon to let me know that 
> the NTIA is willing to accept shape files and is willing to relax some 
> of the data requirements in order to get fuller representation from 
> WISPs.Making ourselves heard and showing a willingness to be part of 
> the solution is the first step to getting better results.
>   


Matt...excellent letter...very professional et al.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/5/2010 12:18 PM, Mike wrote:

Leon:

Innovation will be key.  Yes, a 6 meter vertical is large.  But, what if you
bent that quarter wave into an odd shape?  Think fractals, cloverleafs, and
other HORIZONATL elements.  Comparing what we'd HAVE to use compared to a TV
Yagi is apples to oranges.  Besides, most TV antennas I have ever met are
Log Periodic Dipole arrays, NOT Yagis.  Why?  Because they have to be
engineered to operate in the ENTIRE TV spectrum, NOT a 6 MHz segment.
   

Hey Mike...

I was just using the size as a reference as well as the tv antenna. THe 
longest elements on a TV antenna is 6m.
yes log periodic is the correct terminology :-) but its still a yagi of 
sorts.


I agree that innovation will be the key. remember the top part of 
lo-band is 88 mHz. There is probably a way to build a multi-TV channel 
antenna. Look at HF verticals or vhf/uhf mobile antennas.


leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10 
02:32:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/5/2010 11:02 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

A Couple questions.

First,  I would agree, any Whitespace spectrum is good spectrum for us, and
better than none.

But, why does the FCC keep hypothetically asking us "what about VHF
channels 1-x" the lower part of the band?
I think when we met with Blair, the lower portion of VHF also came up
briefly.

1. Are they asking us, because they plan to give the rest to someone else
:-(
2. Are they asking because others are requesting the higher portions of the
band, that are more advantageous?And wondering whether we consider the lower
portions more or less advantageous for our use?
3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?), that
we dont know about or do know about?
4. Is VHF ch 1-X (7?) more advantageous, becaue its a band more widely
available in more places in the US?
 (For example, I think some free channels exist in Band 1-7 for the DC
area, but I'd need to go back and check to verify).
5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the band?

   

Hey Tom...

a six meter vertical is long - a half wave is about 8.6 feet.(6m is 
50-54mHz) so a quarter wave vertical is 4.3'. Add more gain gets bigger.


Look at the elements in a TV yagi to get a feel for the low-band (2-6) 
element size. ALso, most tv antennas are not that directional on 
lo-band; hi-band (7-13) usually has more gain and directionality.


But would I want to be able to use that spectrum? Absolutely.



Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10 
02:32:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Oh this business, tell me again why we love it?!

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 03/29/2010 01:13 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> I don't believe that.  I've turned people in and the FCC dealt with them.  I 
> know of others that have also had success.
>
> Perhaps someone went about turning them in the wrong way?
>
> You do need some good proof.  Spec analyzer readings, pics etc.
>
> If you need help give me a shout and I'll help you put together the info 
> you'll need and get you to the right people.
>   
I agree...have some documentation in hand and collect it as you go. As I
said earlier, a call to your Congressman is usually helpful if the
direct approach doesn't work.

Leon
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Travis Johnson" 
> To: ; "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Oh this business, tell me again why we love it?!
>
>
>   
>> Negative. I know of an ISP using 5 watt amps on 2.4ghz omni antennas.
>> They have been reported several times to the FCC, and nothing happens.
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
>> 
>>> On 03/27/2010 03:58 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>> Regarding the competetor, if you can prove that your competetor is 
>>>> intentionally interfering with you, the FCC will actually get involved 
>>>> but it will take a long and painful paper-trail to build a strong enough 
>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>> if they are using amps, then the FCC would get involved.
>>>
>>> leon
>>>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Oh this business, tell me again why we love it?!

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 03/28/2010 03:50 PM, Lakeland wrote:
> Last I heard there were 2 engineers in the NYC office to cover 350+ annual 
> TV, radio station, maritime, radar, etc. inspections.  Do the math.  
> Including travel it just doesn't work and they are required to do the 
> inspections. Add that to interference complaints of licensed services by 
> other licensed operators, unauthorized broadcast pirates and tower painting 
> and lighting complaints and there is no time or resources to chase Part 15 
>  -vs- Part 15 complaints. Now, if it involves interference to a licensed 
> operator who the FCC is required by law to protect  then yes it will 
> happen with the right evidence and information.. 
>
> I know of several cases where there was more than enough "evidence" 
> including pictures, statements, recordings, etc. and still nothing was done. 
>
> It just comes down to priorities. 
>  
>   
If the amps this other company is using is not part 15 accepted, then
they do want to know about it. Non-type accepted equip gets them going
as well.

My dad was the ass't EIC of the NYC Field Office until he retired in
'74. I've said this elsewhere, if you don't get Charly to move contact
your Congressman. Many times they had to do stuff because of some
Congress person interacting and contacting Washington.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Oh this business, tell me again why we love it?!

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 03/27/2010 03:58 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:
> Regarding the competetor, if you can prove that your competetor is 
> intentionally interfering with you, the FCC will actually get involved but it 
> will take a long and painful paper-trail to build a strong enough case.
>   
if they are using amps, then the FCC would get involved.

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] how to compete with $15 DSL

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 03/14/2010 11:05 AM, Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
> Local phone company here just expanded their DSL coverage area and mailed
> out fliers to everyone for $15 DSL. I see no mention of it being a
> promotional price. One person said as long as you have it they will not
> raise the rate from $15. Think its for 768k service. Anyways we are getting
> about 1 person a day switching from our $35/month/768k wireless service to
> this DSL. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to retain these
> customers They are not even giving us a chance to offer them a lower
> price as they all already have the DSL turned on and been using it for a
> month before they cancel ours.
>   
Hi Kurtthere has to be a hidden agenda (i.e. fine print). I'd look
carefully at this "promo" and/or have someone call up for service and
grill them on it and get a name.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] FCC Enforcements

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Was going through recent enforcement actions and came across these:

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296094A1.html

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290776A1.html

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-290775A1.html

Make sure you are legal. You never know when a surprise can happen.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65 BS

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 3/9/2010 2:35 PM, Bob Moldashel wrote:

What is the issue?  Is it the cost factor??  Are they being schmucks???
What is it.

The Commission Part 25.256 states that the earth station "_must
negotiate_ in good faith with the terrestrial licensee (thats you) to
arrive at _mutually agreeable_ operating _parameters_ to prevent
unacceptable interference"

It does not say you need to pay their engineering firm bocu dollars
every time you want to put up a base station.  The rules explicitly say
that they need to come up with operating PARAMETERS not procedures.
They can't say you need to have their cousin "Mikey" do the engineering
study and you pay them $3000 each time you want to do it and then they
will approve each individual engineering study.  It says they have to
come up with a set of operating "parameters" not procedures. Tell them
you need a set of operating parameters to ensure that you don't
interfere with them.

And they can't ignore you.  The Commission states they "must" negotiate
with you. Document all your correspondence in writing, certified mail
and build a case.  When they fail to respond appropriately you can
submit your own engineering study and request the Commission make a
determination at that point. They can't just ignore you or make your
life miserable or cost prohibitive to do business.

So again...what are the issues???
   

Hi Bob...

You are right but it like going up against Goliath. When I was working 
for a WiSP in NoVA two years ago I was working on this and had to deal 
with Comsearch. At that point in time, I found out a ways through it 
they did one and at the outset they quoted me some gargantuan price. I 
said no way Jose. They eventually came back with a cheaper price which 
was more reasonable. They (the earth stations) were looking to have 
every location approved. THen a few months later Comsearch pulled the 
plug on them doing the engineering work. Last year they then put up this 
website


http://www.comsearch.com/interactive_solutions/3650MHz_Quick_Look/overview.jsp

so it seems they are back in that biz again.

I have to go back through my files (I moved last April and haven't 
unpacked my office yet) and see who was the one company that was at 
least cordial to us.


The Commission is going to have to do better than what they did. I was 
going to originally do my testing in the Amateur 3.5 band down there but 
then I left and now here at PAETEC. Doing testing in the amateur band 
would have been ok since I am a licensee and I would have put my 
callsign in the SSID for id purposes.


73 Leon WA4ZLW
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2732 - Release Date: 03/09/10 
02:33:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] omni upside down

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 1/27/2010 4:06 PM, RickG wrote:
> Thanks!
> Is there any advantage for a WISP to do this?
> -RickG
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Eje Gustafsson  wrote:
>
>
>> Those are more than likely cell phone sites that have those big whip
>> antennas going up and down (believe they are 800Mhz frequency range
>> systems)
>> My understanding it has one out of two reasons why they are built like
>> that.
>> Antenna diversion or increased base station density.
>>  
on thing you could do with an  upside down antenna is if your antenna is 
down in a valley and need uptilt that would shoot it up slightly.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz in grandfathered earth station areas

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 07:33 -0800, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

> I don't think you have to register your cpe.  The anti competitive nature of 
> that is very clear.


Hi Marlon...I believe any fixed CPE needs to be registered. Especially
in a no-fly zone (grandfather area) the incumbents want to know where
all transmitters are, etc.

Leon


> 
> Chris Twoomey would know for sure though.
> marlon
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jerry Richardson" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz in grandfathered earth station areas
> 
> 
> >I think we will have to.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Matt Jenkins
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:34 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz in grandfathered earth station areas
> >
> > Are you registering all of your fixed CPEs?
> >
> > Jerry Richardson wrote:
> >> Here is the process:
> >> 1. Look up grandfathered stations here: 
> >> http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sd/3650/grandftr.pdf
> >> 2. Find the contact by looking up the license via the call sign
> >> 3. Contact the station to see if they will grant you a general approval 
> >> i.e. "you can use 3.65GHz but if it causes us interference you need to 
> >> turn it off/fix it. etc"
> >> 4. If the Earth Station requests more info, you may need to supply GPS 
> >> location of the base station and or CPEs, radio type/Tx power, antenna 
> >> type, gain, elevation, azimuth, etc. Sprint used ComSearch so I had to 
> >> provide all details.
> >> 5. Once you get the Earth Stations to sign off, then apply for your 
> >> license - it's pretty much automatic. It took about 3 days for me to get 
> >> approved.
> >> 6. Once you have your license, you need to enter your base stations and 
> >> attach your waivers (which I have not done yet).
> >>
> >> Hope that helps.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> >> Behalf Of Scott Carullo
> >> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 10:12 PM
> >> To: WISPA General List
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz in grandfathered earth station areas
> >>
> >> Jerry I'd like to know how you found the local earth stations in your 
> >> area?
> >>  I would like to also know the surrent status of your request as I would
> >> like to follow suite here in my area.  Thanks.
> >>
> >> Scott Carullo
> >> Brevard Wireless
> >> 321-205-1100 x102
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> From: "Jerry Richardson" 
> >> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 6:16 PM
> >> To: "motor...@afmug.com" 
> >> Subject: [WISPA] 3.65GHz in grandfathered earth station areas
> >>
> >> I'm filling out the application for a license in a grandfathered zone.
> >>
> >> During the application proceess, there is a section asking if I am
> >> requesting a "Waiver of the Commissions' Rules".  Does this apply to
> >> grandfathered areas or is this something else?
> >>
> >> I have approval letters from the earth stations in the area. As I
> >> understand it, I only need to provide the letters when submitting the
> >> sites.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance
> >>
> >> [cid:image001.gif@01CA824D.667F6C80]
> >> Broadband for Business
> >> Public and Private WiFi
> >>
> >> Jerry Richardson
> >> VP Operations
> >> 925-260-4119 x2
> >> Website   Blog
> >> Twitter
> >> LinkedIn
> >>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >> 
> >> 
> >>
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >> 
> >>
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >> 
> >>
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >

Re: [WISPA] Crazy Tech Support

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:47 -0700, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

> Mission accomplished.   Customer is back on line.   
> 
> I have a hard time understanding how this would be a "pecuniary 
> interest" situation, as neither operator was receiving money for the 
> call and this is not a common occurrence.   It might be in a gray area, 
> however I also had another gray area to deal with - the 110 miles of 
> blizzard condition driving that would have been necessary to make 30 
> seconds worth of changes to his CPE radio.Certainly can't be a whole 
> lot at stake for five minutes of airtime.

hi matt...yeah it's gray as far as I am concerned too. I have always
taken a loose interpretation of the rules especially when I was trustee
of our FM repeaters. I'd hate to have to drive that far too :-)

Glad u got it all sorted out.

Take care leon
<>


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Crazy Tech Support

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:36 -0700, Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:

> Just when I thought I'd seen everything
> 
> We have a customer who lives in a converted missile silo that has been 
> using our services for a few months. He's an engineer and has been a 
> real pain in the butt at times when he thinks there is a problem with 
> his connection. He has no cable, no satellite and no landline or cell 
> phone service, so he pretty much lives on his $39.95/month Internet 
> connection and MagicJack VOIP phone 



>  I finally determine that he is a Ham Radio operator and has 
> been getting calls from a guy in Kimball wanting to know what is wrong 
> with the Internet down there. So, in effect, mr. missile silo 
> reactivated a cold war signaling system (Ham Radio) and I got the 
> message back to him that he needs to power cycle. Unfortunately, a power 
> cycle didn't fix the problem, so now I am going across town to the radio 
> operator's house to see if I can provide reconfigure his CPE over ham 
> radio.
> 
> This should be interesting.


hi matt... i don't think you can legally do that over ham radio as that
is pecuniary interest and the ham could get in trouble for it and you
are a business.

Leon WA4ZLW



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] High Pings for an AP?

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 12/11/2009 2:03 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:

Yesterday we installed a RocketM5 radio on a 120 degree antenna, since
it's on a tower that shares with a powerful FM radio station we used
insulated Cat5.  Today the pings are terrible on that AP while it's
brother AP's (2.4) and the backhauls are pinging 1-4ms, it averages
40-50ms and the closest I can get to logged in is the password screen.
My assumption is the Cat 5, anybody else have any ideas?
   
Hi Forbes...what freq is the 5g radio on? What freq is the FM station 
on? There might be a harmonic of the FM station up there on 5g.


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.103/2558 - Release Date: 12/11/09 
05:06:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Interference Perhaps

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

Nick Huanca wrote:

We are running into some interference type issues in a few markets with
900MHz. We've put in place some 10 and 20 MHz bandpass to filter cell and
paging. The interference seems to be still bothering our AP. In these
markets we have some antiquated MikroTik equipment running SR9 cards. We
believe this interference to be in-band but have yet to locate the source.

Anyone have any tips/tricks for either avoiding this interference or
locating its source? If we do locate it, any tips on how to get them to play
nice

Hi Nick...what exactly are you experiencing? Please describe your setups.

Thanks leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.97/2550 - Release Date: 12/07/09 
02:33:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] About Hulu and Netflix and youtube...increaseddata delivery is here to stay.

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

The XR3 has FCC compliance.

* Michael Baird wrote, On 11/14/2009 12:24 AM:
> Ubiquity does not have any licensed 3.65 gear for the US, they have 
> XR3/Nano3's but they are for overseas customers.
>
> They have announced they will be coming out with 3.65/900 mhz airmax 
> gear 2nd Quarterish next year.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>   
>> UBNT has fully licensed and approved 3.65 gear.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Ralph" 
>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:34 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] About Hulu and Netflix and 
>> youtube...increaseddatadeliveryis here to stay.
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> What ubnt 3.65 are you saying you tried? Afaik ubnt has 3 gig but not
>>> on US channels. What country are you in?
>>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:15 PM, "MDK"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA FCC FILING re: Section 706

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jack Unger wrote, On 9/12/2009 3:06 PM:
On Friday (9/4) WISPA, with assistance from Rini/Coran, filed Comments 
in the FCC's "Section 706" Notice of Inquiry. This NOI asked if 
Broadband was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all 
Americans.


WISPA's reply answered "No" to this question and went on to address 
issues like:


1. The definition of "broadband".

2. The need for the FCC to act on WISPA's TV White Space Petition for 
Reconsideration.


3. Affordable access to the "middle mile".

4. The adequacy of broadband mapping efforts.

5. Actions to accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans.

WISPA's filing is attached and your comments and questions are 
welcomed. All WISPA members who would like to participate in crafting 
future FCC filings are invited to join WISPA's FCC Committee.


Respectfully,

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee
Hey Jack...I skimmed through the document and from what I see you did 
your homework. I'm printing it out for further review and passed it on 
to some other folks as well. Good job.


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.412 / Virus Database: 270.13.94/2366 - Release Date: 09/12/09 
17:50:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 3.65GHz & Grandfathered satellite earth stations

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

pat wrote:

SES Americom, and they suffer from cranial rectitus.
  
Pat...what exactly are they saying to you. It is not easy. You may have 
to get a 3rd party engineering firm to tdo the analysis. I dealt with 
COmsearch for awhile before I switched jobs. Comsearch did one or two 
analysis' for a Wisp and I think that was it and they dropped it off 
their offerings to be rethought out.


Leon



Tim Sylvester wrote:
  

Who are "these people"? The FCC or the satellite earth station people?

The FCC describes an alternative for determining a safe distance for
locating a station with in an FSS protection zone in Appendix D of the
Report and Order authorizing the 3.65 - 3.70 GHz band. You can read the full
document here:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf

This is the intro to the appendix.

*
APPENDIX D: A Methodology For Locating Fixed Stations Within The FSS Earth
Station
Protection Zone

The rules adopted herein require that fixed stations in the 3650-3700 MHz
band be located at least
150 km from any grandfathered FSS earth station unless all affected
licensees agree on closer spacing.
Below, we present as an example, one methodology that can be used to
determine a safe distance within
the FSS earth station protection zone where a fixed station can be located
without increasing the potential
of that station to cause harmful interference to the earth station. We
reiterate that this is being presented
only as an example of one methodology. We recognize that there are many
methods for providing the
required protection, such as locating the fixed station behind an
obstruction, and that licensees are free to
propose any method they deem appropriate.
*

I would assume that you could use this method to calculate the safe distance
for operating at 3.65GHz and present it to the FCC and the FSS earth station
operator.

I will need to do this for my WiMAX deployment which will have two mountain
ranges between the WiMAX network and the earth station.

Tim


  


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of pat
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] 3.65GHz & Grandfathered satellite earth stations

Anybody else having any luck with these people.  They're trying to tell
me I might have to clear all my customer sites for a proposed WiMax
deployment on a case by case basis.  I'm at the edge of the 150km
exclusion zone and have a mountain range in between us.  This is
getting
really annoying.

Thanks,

Pat
  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.87/2356 - Release Date: 09/09/09 
06:53:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 900Mhz question

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Rick...what data rate(s) are you running on the CPE and AP? What speed 
is the cust supposed to get? I would use something like 6/9/12/18 data 
rates at both ends. The slower the data rate the more headroom you will 
have.


Leon

* RickG wrote, On 9/2/2009 8:44 PM:

I've got two customers on a 900MHz AP RB-433/XR9 running Mikrotik
3.10, with a 13db v-pol omni.
Customer 1 has RB-411/XR9 running Mikrotik 3.10, with a 18db grid. 1
mile of solid trees. Signal is -85. Noise floor = -102.
Customer 2 has RB-411/XR9 running Mikrotik 3.10 with a 15db yagi. 1/4
mile solid trees. Signal is -65. Noise floor = -102.
Both customers live with in a mile of each other in the same direction
from the AP.

Customer 1 is complaining about speed. My tests show about 600-1000Kbps.
Customer 2 is working well with 2-3Mbps speeds.

Up until a few weeks ago Customer 1 had near 3Mbps speeds. I lean
towards blaming the foliage but full bloom has long since passed. Any
thoughts?
  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.76/2343 - Release Date: 09/03/09 
05:50:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 5.8ghz PTP

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Josh Luthman wrote, On 9/1/2009 6:31 PM:

30 megs with a 20 mhz channel is what Travis and I always see in 5ghz.
 Xr5 and r52(h) myself.
  
we had almost a 30 mile path using I believe SR5s and I think it was 10 
mHz channels and I think we topped it at 15m but throttled it back to 
cap @ 10m (mostly that link was for residential and a few biz).


leon

On 9/1/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
  

Mikrotik with R52N cards and say a RB411AH

I see almost that much throughput with the regular rb411 boards but the cpu
i believe is the bottleneck but its close.

Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102

 Original Message 


From: "Cameron Kilton" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:38 PM
To: "wireless@wispa.org" 
Subject: [WISPA] 5.8ghz PTP

Anybody know of any equipment for under 5K that can deliver 100Mbit
(ish) with Dual Polarity with Adaptive Modulation? (Anything that is not
Ubiquiti for now.)

Also anybody know when the Rocket M will be shipping?

Thank You,
Cameron Kilton
  
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.74/2339 - Release Date: 09/01/09 
06:52:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik and 3650

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jason Hensley wrote, On 8/20/2009 3:51 PM:

I know it works, but will the FCC come crashing down on me if they find out
I have these in place?
  
FIrst you need to lite-license yourself and make sure you (your 
locations) are not in an exclusion zone. If so, then take 2. Otherwise, 
proceed and follow the rules.


I also would use the Ligowave stuff as well even though I've used the 
MTK stuff. I'm disappointed in the Ubiquiti stuff (at least 900) and 
wouldn't want the same thing to happen there (3650)


leon



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik and 3650

I personally am avoiding 3.65 and MT.  Ligowave and an80 are what I am
going to do.

I do know it works, though.  You have to find the cable that matches
5.8 frequency in MT to 3.65 in actual output.  No support by MT (or
even as much as an answer to my questions).

On 8/20/09, Jason Hensley  wrote:
  

I need a backhaul link outside of 2.4 and 5.8.  If I put together a


Mikrotik
  

system, say an RB600 with an Xr3 and put a 20db Grid on each end would


that
  

be legal?  Admittedly I'm not up to speed on what is and is not allowed in
3650 as far as power output, etc etc.  This would be a short backhaul - 2
miles or less.

Along these same lines, can I build a PtMP 3650 system with these same


type
  

specs?

Thanks!



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.62/2315 - Release Date: 08/20/09 
06:05:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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