Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? MORE THAN YOU!
I guess I'll unsubscribe as well. Good bye. Lonnie On 5/17/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All right - here it is - I am done and this is all I will say! Lonnie - how are you with all your resources helping the CALEA effort? Come to think about it - how are you helping with getting your StarOS and hardware FCC certified for the USA WISP? You are good to point a finger here today, but you aren't any help in even supporting those that have supported you for years! There are many B I G wireless operators that praise you and you're OS and I have yet to hear how you are going to assist getting these businesses legal and yet you want to pound WISPA board for Mark K's multi thousand comments on list that was absolutely driving the majority insane? I didn't ever say he didn't have a point - - but to make that point 77 times a day is a bit much - wouldn't you say? I have to admit I complained to the board, but they were quick to point out that he has a right to his opinion much to my chagrin. Lets get down the nitty gritty - what are you doing to assist us in our problem of CALEA? You won't even pony up the $1000.00 (just like Mark K.'s membership dues) to be a member of WISPA, but you will bitch and moan and groan about what the board members (who did pay)have to say as well the paid members opinions. You haven't even bothered to assist the GOB's or the not so GOB's who run your OS, (built their entire network off StarOS) get legal. I think (personally) if your gear ain't FCC certified - you ought not to be allowed to sale it in the USA. I will take it a step further than that - - - - no I won't as it includes a horse, dragging, nakedness and a town full of people to witness!! I guess I will self impose a banishment now - how many days Harnish? Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Rayville, La. www.inetsouth.com www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief) www.mac-tel.us (VoIP sales) 318.728.8600 318.728.9600 318.303.4182 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:47 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:56 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list > > > >I am not saying that CALEA is not real and I actually agree that is > > required, BUT, did the group have to agree with the rushed timing and > > especially agree to meet a standard that was not even defined? > > Within the law, it's up to us to define the standard. > > We met with the "customer" that can give us safe harbor status if they > like > our solution. We also took the time and money needed to make sure that we > could get the RIGHT answers to as many questions as we could. > > > > > They could have argued for some prior consultation to make sure the > > requirements were not a hardship for their membership. > > And how would anyone out here know what we did in that regard? For the > reccord, *I* talked to the FBI about CALEA and it's impact on our industry > segment. *THEY* knew that there would be problems with the independant > operators but didn't know who to talk to and hadn't yet taken the time to > find out. > > We're building a standard so that compliance won't create a hardship for > our > industry. > > > They owed that > > duty to the members. > > We fullfilled that "duty" as you call it. We did tell them that CALEA, as > things stand, is a disaster for our industry. They know and understand. > That's one of the reasons that they are working so closely with us to > build > a more affordable/lower impact solution for those that need it. > > > Instead they mostly tried to beat up anybody who > > spoke against any aspect of it, and as you just tried, to say the > > speaker uppers were acting like hippies from the 60's and merely > > wasting time. > > Sigh. Beating up? I don't think so. Sure, we called a spade a spade > when > people said that we were wasting our time in the wrong direction. The > time > to protest is past, we have to comply now. People fought the battle and > lost. It's law and it's not gonna go away. So now what. What can we > DO??? > (other than jumping up and down pitching a fit???) > > > I believe in Government and Anarchy would be horrible, > > so at some point Government must be prepared to listen to people, > >
Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list
People were allowed a LOT of leeway in taking shots at Mark. It got very personal, very quickly and I have no idea if people were reprimanded or not. He was definitely excluded by attacks from a select few who did not want any differing views. Why does everything have to hit the fight or flight situation? What is wrong with discussion? I do accept that the time for action was 2 years ago, so I propose to just bow out of this whole discussion and I'll get back to work. Lonnie On 5/17/07, John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > I'm going out on a limb and will voice some things that have been > suppressed. > > I get your point that you think I am a freeloader and do not > contribute. My problem for not joining is not a money one, but rather > one of principle. > > I did get involved early on and saw that there was still an old guard > of the good old boys. They played favorites early on and still do. > Is it proper to support that? It would be very BAD for the Industry > if one were to push and fight the GOB's, but, and this in not an > excuse, I do not have to time for such fights. > > Do I support WISPA? Partly. When things like CALEA come up and > people are sent to talk with the FBI and FCC, what is their game plan? > What are they trying to do for the membership? > I feel that WISPA should have taken a much harder line on that and > other issues. Any members who spoke against what the FBI and FCC told > the WISPA group were quickly put down and isolated. It was disgusting > to watch. It certainly was not a functioning democracy. It was > pretty heavy handed. I am guessing the way Mark K was verbally beat up on the list by many may have led to some of what Lonnie refers to as the "Good Old Boys" heavy handed words. I guess I am the Prez of that GOB he refers to so here is an excerpt from an April 22nd post in what I believe was my last post toward Mark in regard to his stance on CALEA: (Quote from April 22nd post "FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband") I think one of WISPA's jobs is to allow some open access for industry debate and discussion about issues. I openly support having Mark and others to air their ideas, even when, and especially when, those ideas conflict with WISPA policy and/or views of leadership. This public list is here to be that forum. To serve the industry we must hear from the industry. WISPA is here to serve our members but it is more important for us to serve the entire industry. That means we have to hear from them and consider what is best for the industry as our first priority. (End Quote) Lonnie, am I part of that "GOB" or was my support of Mark (who was speaking against the WISPA CALEA effort with great vigor) something you missed previously? If you did not like my words back to Mark from time to time then you should at least acknowledge that I publicly approved of his right to speak out against the CALEA efforts and how WISPA was handling them, despite my own personal feelings on the subject. Nobody in WISPA leadership acted to stop any effort to protest CALEA. In fact there was open support of the efforts of a Senator who was working on a relief plan for small operators. Jack Unger was heading that up. Who was helping small operators for relief of CALEA regulations? I argue it was WISPA as much as anyone else. If you know of others who did more then please send me a URL. Maybe I will send them a donation. Nobody wants CALEA shoved up their backside but somebody has to do the heavy lifting. Somebody has to cover the collective asses of the WISPs who might get a lawful intercept order. That somebody happens to be the WISPA CALEA Committee which is made up of a number of people who are working hard to help. That is their only agenda in regard to the committee work being done. I am sure some will profit from doing the work. Is there anything wrong with that? I say NO. More power to them. Lonnie, I have no problem with you kicking me or WISPA when it is founded. I have my doubts you have a claim here. My advice to you is to lead, follow or get out of the way. Scriv -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list
You have shown your good nature many, many times George. Thanks for the hard work and peace making. Are you sure you're not Canadian? Lonnie On 5/17/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: My suspicion is you'll > get the support if you represent what people want. People vote with > their feet and pocketbooks. I've seen a lot of good people leave. > I've seen a lot of good people forced out because the GOB's could not > stand them. And I've seen a lot of good people (mostly everybody on > this list) not support WISPA financially. You know Lonnie, I consider you a friend of mine, but I just can't say that I have seen that many people leave. I have seen more people decide to join. Join means actually paying a membership fee not just participate on list. As for the good old boys. I'm not so sure I see much of what you perceive you are seeing. Either there is a whole other board list that left me out or it's just not the situation. I don't consider myself to be a good old boy. I think the other board members who actually contribute behind the scenes do a wonderful job. The hardest working guy on the board, and by far he IS the #1 hardest working guy on the board is Marlon and he is leaving the board voluntarily because of lack of time. How many ways can you split Marlon up? I think Marlon thinks the board is one way too many. And he has decided to open a position for someone else to take a shot at doing something. My respect for Marlon has grown 10 fold. Even if I disagree with some of his opinions, I believe he is just trying his hardest best. I would venture to guess that if we all put down our swords and shields and forgot about those things in the past that have prejudiced us against each other, we would be far more better off and this organization would be an even better asset to the wisp industry. I personally harbor no ill feelings against anyone. I may have my opinions, but in no way shape or form do I have anything but goodwill towards everyone. Sure there are some of us here who are short, crude or rude or rush to judgment, but we are after all just human and none of us are perfect. We make mistakes. I prefer to look past the faults that anyone has and look for the good in everyone. Lonnie, WISPA can still use your support. You asked certain things a couple months ago as a prerequisite to again supporting WISPA with a vendor membership and we have done these things mostly and want to remind you that we are an organization of various opinions / ideas who are just trying to do things that will make being a wisp that much better. There is no good old boys club. Sincerely George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list
Agreed. Lonnie On 5/17/07, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > I am not saying that CALEA is not real and I actually agree that is > required, BUT, did the group have to agree with the rushed timing and > especially agree to meet a standard that was not even defined? > Specifically, CALEA does not require use of a standard to be compliant, which is why none is defined. If you want safe harbor then yes, you are going to need to use a blessed standard, but again that is not required. My understanding is that WISPA was attempting to define their own standard, get it blessed, and then allow the membership to use it as opposed to the very complicated and expensive ATSI standard that exists now. > They could have argued for some prior consultation to make sure the > requirements were not a hardship for their membership. They owed that > duty to the members. Instead they mostly tried to beat up anybody who > spoke against any aspect of it, and as you just tried, to say the > speaker uppers were acting like hippies from the 60's and merely > wasting time. I believe in Government and Anarchy would be horrible, > so at some point Government must be prepared to listen to people, > especially an organization that purports to represent a large group of > people. That is WISPA and that was what the group was organized for. > If the membership of WISPA wanted to lobby against CALEA then we had an opportunity almost two years ago. Simply put, by the time CALEA got on enough people's radar to matter there was no longer time to lobby against it. Therefore, the only practical thing to do was to figure out how to comply. Personally, I don't think WISPA as an organization should work on a CALEA standard. Every member WISP had to become CALEA compliant without WISPA because of the deadline, so WISPA working on a standard now is simply too late. The spectrum issues we were discussing and working on with the FCC before CALEA came up seem much more important now that the CALEA deadline has passed. -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list
I am not saying that CALEA is not real and I actually agree that is required, BUT, did the group have to agree with the rushed timing and especially agree to meet a standard that was not even defined? They could have argued for some prior consultation to make sure the requirements were not a hardship for their membership. They owed that duty to the members. Instead they mostly tried to beat up anybody who spoke against any aspect of it, and as you just tried, to say the speaker uppers were acting like hippies from the 60's and merely wasting time. I believe in Government and Anarchy would be horrible, so at some point Government must be prepared to listen to people, especially an organization that purports to represent a large group of people. That is WISPA and that was what the group was organized for. Heck, to come back from that meeting and simply parrot everything that had been told to the committee was a waste of time and money to even go to the meeting. To achieve what they achieved could have been done with a conference call, or simply done nothing. The Telcos would never have sent a group and accepted an outcome like that. I'll drop back to lurk mode now. The level of hurt feelings is growing, as evidenced by my private in basket. Lonnie On 5/17/07, Jeff Broadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, I've been quiet through this whole thing, but I have to speak up here. CALEA is a reality here, and I believe that something like it will soon be a reality in Canada. Shouting at the Capitol building from outside the fence may feel good, but it gets nothing accomplished. The FACT is that if you want to be a service provider you need to have a plan for CALEA compliance. It's everyone's right to say that it doesn't apply to them, but that doesn't make them correct...and if they say it loud and often enough, others may get the wrong idea as well. We are involved heavily on the CALEA committee. Has everything gone exactly the way we would like? No, but that's the nature of any committee (and Wispa is really a large committee), and we are ok with that. Overall, we've been pleased to be part of forming Wispa's direction for CALEA compliance. I believe that we are further along in our efforts, and that Wispa is further along in the overall effort, because we joined in the process. I don't think you are a freeloader. Everything I see and hear says that you are a great guy and a fine businessman. You have been contributing to lists for years and anyone who has been around knows that. I hope that you join in, you'd be a terrific addition to the team. Jeff -Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list I'm going out on a limb and will voice some things that have been suppressed. I get your point that you think I am a freeloader and do not contribute. My problem for not joining is not a money one, but rather one of principle. I did get involved early on and saw that there was still an old guard of the good old boys. They played favorites early on and still do. Is it proper to support that? It would be very BAD for the Industry if one were to push and fight the GOB's, but, and this in not an excuse, I do not have to time for such fights. There are other more important things to do, so I lurk, and occasionally chime in when I feel something has been really missed or has gone overboard. It is better for me not to get into fights and the Organization does need that either. Do I support WISPA? Partly. When things like CALEA come up and people are sent to talk with the FBI and FCC, what is their game plan? What are they trying to do for the membership? All I saw was a few people were star struck that they actually talked the HEAD of the FBI for CALEA. BIG DEAL. Those people put their pants on one leg at a time like we all do. Did you tell these guys what would be best for the Industry? Did you even know what was good for the Industry? Or did you take your hat in your hand and come back and use all sort of tactics to get people to sign that they would be ready for CALEA compliance, when in fact nobody even knew what that would require? I feel that WISPA should have taken a much harder line on that and other issues. Any members who spoke against what the FBI and FCC told the WISPA group were quickly put down and isolated. It was disgusting to watch. It certainly was not a functioning democracy. It was pretty heavy handed. In short, I have not seen the organization really go to bat for the membership. I can only imagine the crap that would hit the fan if the FBI and FCC were to give the Telcos the same sort of treatment with regards to time and unknown requirements that they gave to the WI
Re: [WISPA] What is WISPA? was Promotion of services on-list
x27;m too selfish or It is easier to be a back seat driver. (As a back seat driver, you don't pay for gas, can point out all the short comings, and claim you weren't steering.) 7) If you are going to be in the Wireless Broadband Industry next year, join WISPA now. The more members, the more voice. Plus you get to vote for the new board. 7b) If you aren't going to join, and continue to be a free-loader, then don't complain that you don't like the direction. No potshots from the bleachers, okay? If you don't like something, volunteer to work on it. Be a part of the Solution, not a piece of the problem. Whew! Now, go sign up a customer, so you can join WISPA, since one client will pay for your membership dues. Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Promotion of services on-list
wrote: > >> I don't feel that ANY promotion of products or services in a signature of >> this particular list should be allowed unless you pay for it. > > That gets into the incredibly fuzzy question of "what counts as > promotion," though. > > Let's take the email thread, as an example. > > If I'm the owner of SuperDeluxeEmail and post "you should use my company > because it's the best," that's probably self-promotion. > > What if I say "you should use my company because I'm a WISPA member?" Is > that promotion, or an advertisement of the sort WISPA has been known to > offer to paying vendor members? > > What if I don't disclose that I own SuperDeluxeEmail? > > What if I'm using a sock puppet to tell people how awesome > SuperDeluxeEmail is? > > What if, instead of being the owner of the company, I'm just a minority > investor? Or "merely" a very satisfied customer? > > What if I think it's a lousy company and I want you to use their service > so you'll think it's lousy and join me in publicly bad-mouthing them? > > There's a lot of subtle levels here. > > Honestly, IMO a lot of the value of this list comes from the fact that a > lot of different vendors are directly, or indirectly, represented here. > A little self-promotion is probably inevitable, and probably healthy. > (If you can't promote yourself and your business at least a little bit, > you won't be in business for very long.) > > Giving WISPA money doesn't (or at least shouldn't) mean that everyone > walks on eggshells around your booth in the ongoing trade show that is > this mailing list, and doesn't mean that we'll overlook any problems or > shortcomings in your product. Conversely, if you make a good product, we > won't ignore it out-of-hand because you haven't yet tithed. (We'll > probably encourage you to do so, but...) > > If we're going to start treating some folks differently based solely > upon whether they're paying members of WISPA, this list loses a lot of > its value. > > David Smith > Employed by [[ That information is not available at your security > clearance, citizen. ]] > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Radio / antenna combo
It depends what you wish to accomplish. They both seem to provide the same result but it is the side effects that are most important. The ultimate in high power radios low gain antenna is the omni combo. This combo sprays power in all directions and gathers signal from all directions. This means that you are sending your signal in areas that you might not want and thus creating reuse problems. It also means your receiver is seeing your other AP signals thus you have a lower receive level (due to low gain omni) and you have more noise from other directions. Reducing the 360 beamwidth to 180 gives a 3 dB drop in noise. Moving to a 90 degree sector gives you 6 dB better noise levels, and will usually have about 5 dB or more better signal. This translates to a SNR gain of about 11 dB over an omni, assuming normal noise situations. As anybody knows. wireless quality is ALL about SNR. The really big thing is the high power levels you spray with the low gain antenna high power radios. Also, as anybody knows, wireless is all about interference and if you spray signals where you do not need them, then you are creating interference. P2P is something you should use a large antenna for and turn down your power to keep signals in the -60 dB range. We use 2 foot solid dishes for shots to 15 miles and 3 foot for shots to 50 miles. We use 60 degree 16 dB sectors for our 2.4 GHz AP units. I am totally pleased with the results and we have great -70 dB signals to 5 miles using 14 dB Rootennas, and a few customers at 12 miles with 24 dB grids with -72 dB readings. For Non LOS we use 900 MHZ and 9 dB yagis for both ends. They make a great AP unit and for customers they are nice and small and do not get in your face. If we need more power we get the 13 dB yagi but they become a 5 foot monster and you definitely see them. They work great and when presented with dialup or 5 foot yagi they make the right choice. To obtain LOS you need to remove the problem or go over or around it. The only thing I have ever seen a tree hugger dig out the chainsaw for is wireless. They are so tired of dialup that you hear trees crashing 15 minutes after you point out the ones that are causing trouble. Lonnie On 5/11/07, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am trying to understand if it is better to high gain antenna / lower power radio or low gain antenna / higher power radio. Either combo can get you to max EIRP but it seems the lower gain antenna give you better coverage through greater vertical beam width. Am I thinking right? Mark McElvy -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless
Maybe a little bit, but the guy was asking for our help to get the FCC to look at something that might benefit the WISP Industry. Lonnie On 5/10/07, Dawn DiPietro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sounds like an ad too. :-) Jory Privett wrote: > Sounds like a great idea. I only have one issue from what I read > here, $500 per link seems high. Most ISPs complain about the $250 > they pay now for CPEs. > > Jory Privett > WCCS > > - Original Message - From: "michael mulcay" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:23 PM > Subject: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless > > >> Guys, >> >> As we wireless operators know, the costs of licensed networks >> (equipment, antennas and licensing) makes providing services to the >> majority of subscribers prohibitively expensive, and the cost at auction >> for spectrum (for WiMax and 4G products) is beyond the reach of most of >> us. >> >> To overcome these problems, two years ago Wireless Strategies began >> research into ways to use new technologies -- WiMAX and smart antennas >> -- to reuse side lobe radiation around sites of point-to-point 4GHz and >> 6GHz microwave links under the present FCC rules and without causing >> additional interference. >> >> Our finding is that networks can be designed to operate with smart >> antennas with distributed radiators and that the new paths can be >> concurrently coordinated, under existing FCC rules and without causing >> additional interference. >> >> We believe that concurrent coordination will be "The Next Big Thing in >> Wireless," leveling the playing field by making it possible for WISPs to >> obtain multipurpose licensed spectrum at pennies on the dollar compared >> to obtaining it at auction. By making use of the formerly wasted side >> lobe radiation of 4GHz and 6GHz paths, WISPs will be able to use IEEE >> 802.16-based (WiMAX) equipment with small antennas to provide licensed >> broadband services to hundreds of additional subscribers at a >> provisioning cost of only about $500 per link. We appreciate that some >> members of the industry may initially perceive any change to the status >> quo as a threat, but we believe that concurrent coordination will >> provide extraordinary benefits to the entire industry, especially WISPs. >> >> Due to the potential for unprecedented industry-wide changes from the >> use of antennas with distributed radiators to provide multiple-path >> low-cost broadband services under the existing FCC rules, Wireless >> Strategies decided to remove any uncertainty for investors and service >> providers by, on February 23, 2007, filing with the Federal >> Communications Commission, a Request for a Declaratory Ruling on >> Compliance of Fixed Microwave Antennas Having Distributed Radiating >> Elements. >> >> However, to date, the FCC has taken no action. We believe that emails of >> support from the WISP community can help speed up the process, by >> encouraging the FCC to either issue the requested declaratory ruling or >> to issue a Public Notice for industry comment. >> >> Therefore, if you would like a copy of our FCC filing and/or information >> about the new concept of concurrent coordination, please contact me at >> Wireless Strategies 831-659-5618 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] For >> additional information you can also visit our web site at >> www.wirelessstrategies.net. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> >> Michael Mulcay, CEO >> Wireless Strategies, Inc. >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA FAQ Questions
Do they issue search warrants for a whole apartment building because they suspect "someone" living there is doing something bad? It was my understanding that a bit more info is required and it has to actually have a person or persons in mind. Why would data taps be treated any differently? Lonnie On 5/10/07, Matt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been reading the WISPA CALEA FAQ and was a little concerned about > question #10. If the LEA does not know who the suspect is using an open > access point does this mean that everyone that has used that access > point will have their data handed over to the LEA? It would seem that if > the LEA is only allowed to receive the data requested in the subpoena > this would be a violation. In the past WISP's have asked if there was anyway to keep users from NATing and connecting more then 1 PC. There is no way to block this and no easy way to prevent or detect it. From the ISP perspective there is no way isolate single hotspot user since they all come in on the same IP. If the ISP has control and management of the hotspot they may be able to isolate the traffic of a given mac but this would not be reliable if they connect with a different laptop the next day. Of course it depends what kind of hotspot and how its setup. I would say your going to have to give the LEA all the traffic for the hotspot and let them filter/figure out what they need. Moral of the story: open non-encrypted wireless routers are NOT secure to use. Unless your a bad guy and just drive around tell you find one then do your ill deeds there. Just my opinion. Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS v3 and new Tranzeo CPE radios
We made certain we kept the "normal" channels in all assignments, this you will find 5745 in X1, X2 and X4 our channel lists. Lonnie On 5/9/07, Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While doing some testing with StarV3 and Tranzeo SL5/SL2 CPE units and came across something interesting. 20mhz and 5mhz channel spacing works just fine. However, 10mhz channel spacing doesn't work because the channels do not line up. For example: in 5.8 with 10mhz channels, the Tranzeo uses: 5750 5760 5780 5790 5800 5810 5820 5830 and the StarOS V3 uses: 5745 5755 5765 5775 5785 5795 5805 5815 5825 Any ideas on fixed for this one? I'd really like to use the Tranzeos with 10mhz channels as that appears to be the best balance between spectrum conservation and speed. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] CALEA Question
t;> as they could just say "go talk to our upstream." (I doubt it'd work >>>> for multi-homed ISPs, as that would require multiple upstreams to be >>>> tapped and somehow synchronized, which is probably technically >>>> annoying.) >>>> >>>> David Smith >>>> MVN.net >>>> -- >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
aye is a form of yes, as in aye capn highliner. eh is a form of question, to gain agreement, such as "I can do this, eh?" Lonnie On 5/2/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: eh? I thought it was "aye" Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > The proper phrase is: yeah but, wait right here, eh? > > Always end with a question, eh? > > Lonnie -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
The proper phrase is: yeah but, wait right here, eh? Always end with a question, eh? Lonnie On 5/2/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nahh, hippies don't have harley's. I was wiring at a hippie market a few years back, and this hippie dude, a real hippie dude, told me that my truck was a waste and that anywhere I could go in Eugene Oregon, he could get there just as fast on his bicycle. robably is true. So as I was getting ready to go to the supply house, he bet me that he would get there first. So I took the bet, sure enough I show up and here is this hippie dude sitting on the loading dock. So I say to him, "yeah but", ( a canadian expression :) ) waite right here. I come out with a few bundles of conduit and a few big rolls of wire,etc and ask him, how are you going to get this stuff back to your store on a bicycle??? Why else would I be driving a truck! George Cliff Leboeuf wrote: > But they are alike in they both have Harleys... :) > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of chris cooper > Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:03 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA? > > Its like my old hippie friend told me "the only difference between > hippie and yuppie is 50 grand a year" That was in 91. Adjust > accordingly for inflation. > c -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
I suggest you not take the view that breaking any and all laws is a criminal matter. There are various levels of laws, and most are not criminal matters. I can break the speed laws and get a fine but no criminal record, unless of course I harm someone or do it in such a way that it is clearly criminal or insane (like 100 mph through a playground). Lonnie On 5/2/07, Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2007, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: >Changing the laws happens MUCH quicker if a mass of people openly >oppose it. Your country was founded on that very principle. Yes it does (sometimes). Open opposition to a law and advocating criminal action are not the same thing. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
Also, and it finally sunk in, WE are becoming the MAN. Why are we scared of ourselves? Lonnie On 5/2/07, chris cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Its like my old hippie friend told me "the only difference between hippie and yuppie is 50 grand a year" That was in 91. Adjust accordingly for inflation. c -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 4:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA? In the 60's and '70's most of us would taken a much firmer stance. We got old and worried about offending somebody. And then we worried that somebody would punish us for taking our stand. One thing is for sure, the Telcos would not have stood for such a bum's rush. The FCC and FBI guys would be running for cover from the Telco legal and lobby efforts. Our reaction was to brow beat anybody who questioned the the double speak. What happened to us? Do we feel we have too much to lose and no way to protect ourselves? Are we really in a free country or have we fooled ourselves about that as well? Lonnie -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
Changing the laws happens MUCH quicker if a mass of people openly oppose it. Your country was founded on that very principle. Lonnie On 5/2/07, Butch Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, 2 May 2007, Alan Cain wrote: > Dawn DiPietro wrote: >> Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable >>solution. I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the >>plate and defending your position. >Whoa, there now! Civil disobedience is always a viable solution. Civil disobedience is (in the context that Dawn was using it) the breaking of existing law. In spite of your 60's heritage, breaking the law is NOT an acceptable action. I understand your position (in theory, not practice), but CHANGING law through political influence is one thing. Ignoring it is not a smart thing. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
In the 60's and '70's most of us would taken a much firmer stance. We got old and worried about offending somebody. And then we worried that somebody would punish us for taking our stand. One thing is for sure, the Telcos would not have stood for such a bum's rush. The FCC and FBI guys would be running for cover from the Telco legal and lobby efforts. Our reaction was to brow beat anybody who questioned the the double speak. What happened to us? Do we feel we have too much to lose and no way to protect ourselves? Are we really in a free country or have we fooled ourselves about that as well? Lonnie On 5/2/07, Alan Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dawn DiPietro wrote: > Mark, > > Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable > solution. I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the > plate and defending your position. > Whoa, there now! Civil disobedience is always a viable solution. This IS America (at least where I live), land of the free and home of the brave, a country of laws (remember?) and of the rights of all people guaranteed by our constitution and bill of rights. I remember the 60's and 70's (and participated) and I for one am NOT sorry. I am a war veteran, disabled by our conflict, and a war protester, and I am bloody well sensitive to the idea that my fights (for individual rights and the rights of our citizens to squawk like hell) was for nothing. Was it? I think our country was made, and made better, by civil disobedience, and that there is always a place for it. Always. Did I say always? Alan Cain The king can see that (I hope) without his spectacles. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the...
So once a non standard connector becomes an Industry Standard then you will find it in most supply stores. Also, what sort of supply store? Radio Shack or Electrocomm? Radio Shack might have the N connector, but it is likely suitable for VHF use only. Microwave quality is not mainstream, so does that mean an AP can use a Microwave rated N connector? I would think so. Lonnie On 4/26/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's one definition that the FCC has used for "unique connector". Begin Quote ___ A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in electronic supply stores. _ End Quote ______ jack Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > I am still wondering what is meant by "unique" for the connector. > I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed. Why is that? > > Lonnie > > On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a "non >> unique" connector are devices labeled for and sold only to "professional >> installers". >> >> The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 >> professional installer is. >> >> What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device >> where >> it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use >> specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro >> installer. Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap >> without >> also including the cable and antenna for it. >> >> To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained >> on a >> specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the >> bad ol' >> wpcs days). The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified >> combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP >> limits. >> So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not >> accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit. >> >> The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device >> designed for a professional installer. If you're not sure that your >> device >> is for a pro installer, look in the manual. If it's got an n >> connector on >> it, it should also say that it's only available to professional >> installers. >> >> That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone. We are, as users of this >> gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we >> don't >> have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits >> (like a >> Linksys dsl router etc.). >> >> Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use >> anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna. But they clearly aren't >> yet >> ready to go there. >> >> Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time >> with >> the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules). I'll pass along >> what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it. >> >> Hope that helps, >> Marlon >> (509) 982-2181 >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >> 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since >> 1999! >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's >> Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval >> >> >> >I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says >> > that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N >> > connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something >> > becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. >> > >> > Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes >> > that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead >> > while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus >> > they would certainly allow a removable antenna. >> > >> > I do agree that they are worr
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
I am still wondering what is meant by "unique" for the connector. I've seen you write that the N connector is NOT allowed. Why is that? Lonnie On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Under the normal Part-15 rules, the only devices allowed to have a "non unique" connector are devices labeled for and sold only to "professional installers". The problem is, there isn't really a good explanation of what a part-15 professional installer is. What I've been told by the FCC is that the intent is that any device where it's easy to mix and match parts (remember that you could only use specifically certified antennas before 2005) was to only be sold to a pro installer. Literally, it was illegal for a vendor to sell us an ap without also including the cable and antenna for it. To be a pro installer we're supposed to have been manufacturer trained on a specific piece of gear (I was trained on p-com and wmux gear in the bad ol' wpcs days). The reasoning was that it's possible to use a certified combination of radio, cable, and antenna, and STILL exceed the EIRP limits. So we're supposed to have been trained on the device so we'd not accidentally assemble and configure an illegal version of a legal kit. The new rules specifically say that these rules do NOT apply to a device designed for a professional installer. If you're not sure that your device is for a pro installer, look in the manual. If it's got an n connector on it, it should also say that it's only available to professional installers. That rule has been TOTALLY ignored by everyone. We are, as users of this gear day in and day out, assumed to be professional installers so we don't have to buy devices with only unique connectors or buy only in kits (like a Linksys dsl router etc.). Again, I'd LOVE to see a real mix and match capability where we could use anyone's radio with anyone's amp and antenna. But they clearly aren't yet ready to go there. Just to make sure I'm reading this correctly, I've asked for some time with the head of OET (the FCC folks that write these rules). I'll pass along what he says once I'm able to talk to him about it. Hope that helps, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval >I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says > that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N > connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something > becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. > > Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes > that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead > while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus > they would certainly allow a removable antenna. > > I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having > Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom > consumer router. > > For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I > did see that in the document. I felt it was a very positive step and > one that will help the Industry in general. > > > > On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over >> anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The >> mix >> and match "thing" is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. >> However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done. >> >> This is the specific clause that applies to us: >> The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be >> applied to modules. >> >> If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for >> professional installation only. >> >> This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the >> world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say >> otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have >> changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would >> bring almost all of them back into compliance. &g
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
Most SBC units use Linux which is also used with some PDA's, laptops and desktop systems. Most laptops can be classed as a SBC since they have what they need on a single board. Many SBC gear makes use of expansion connectors, based on the PCI or mini PCI standard, making them similar to many desktop motherboards. The SBC gear from Gateworks, ADI, for example, have a processor, RAM, boot rom, file storage, Ethernet, and mini PCI slots. You could actually install a video card in one of the mini PCI slots and have an actual desktop PC. It would be slow, but it would do it, just the same. The block diagrams for a SBC and desktop motherboard will look pretty identical. Thus any talk of distinctions between different types of base units is not really on the right track and shows a lack of understanding of that sort of technology. I'm not sure why anybody in this Industry would be trying to say that it is OK to use an approved modular transmitter in a laptop but that it is not OK to use that same equipment in a board such as you get from Gateworks or ADI, and many others, I might add. I personally take great joy in the FCC saying that base unit is not an issue and that they are concerned with the transmitter and antenna portion. Lonnie On 4/26/07, Tim Kerns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181> > This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the > world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say > otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have > changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would > bring almost all of them back into compliance. > This is where I don't see that we are any different. What is the difference between an IPAQ, Dell, and SBC's like WRAP, Gateworks, Metro, etc. They are computers, they are base units that a radio module is installed into, they run an OS. Their primary purpose is to be a computer and we the WISP community have used them to become AP's or Clients. My Dell laptop with it's installed minipci radio is a "Client". And if I chose to install other software it can be an AP. The only thing I see my laptop from being legal is if I chose to attach a different antenna than what is already there. But if the manufacture of that radio had certified it with say a 24bd grid then I could attach that grid to the laptop and still be legal. Again this is MY wishful understanding of this new rule. Tim -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the, Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and, equipment approval
I saw nothing about an N connector being disallowed. It simply says that the connector(s) must be unique, and my contention is that an N connector is just as unique as a U.FL or RP-SMA. Once something becomes an Industry Standard it sort of loses its uniqueness. Since every system must have an antenna and for maintenance purposes that antenna must be removable. Just try and unsolder an antenna lead while hanging off a tower. I doubt that is their intention and thus they would certainly allow a removable antenna. I do agree that they are worried about the consumer gear and having Joe Schmoe hook up a larger antenna to his Dlink, LinkSys or Zcom consumer router. For the ISP market the rules must have a bit more common sense, and I did see that in the document. I felt it was a very positive step and one that will help the Industry in general. On 4/26/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I certainly DO want to mix and match. Hell, it's going on all over anywhere, they're gonna have to legalize it sooner or later anyway. The mix and match "thing" is way beyond anyone's ability to enforce it anymore. However, it's still the law and shouldn't be done. This is the specific clause that applies to us: The "professional installation" provision of Section 15.203 may not be applied to modules. If it's got an N connector on it, as does most of our gear, it's for professional installation only. This new ruling is clearly aimed at the Dells, HPs, Toshibas etc. of the world. Not at us. If you can find a source at the FCC that'll say otherwise I'd LOVE to hear from them. 90% of the networks out there have changed something that will take them out of compliance, this rule would bring almost all of them back into compliance. Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
o card is >>>> certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can be >>>> used. >>>> >>>> So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track. Jack is >>>> right, not any "base," but I would read it that any "certified base" is >>>> doable. >>>> I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered to >>>> find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with a set >>>> of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card. Putting a >>>> CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an antenna, >>>> using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9. >>>> >>>> Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base" unit, we >>>> should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna and >>>> be good. The "gotcha" here is those sections of Part 15 I have not yet >>>> followed up on. I am not sure what the "professional installer" stuff >>>> is about. >>>> >>>> What am I missing or is this good news? >>>> >>>> Jack Unger wrote: >>>>> Tim, >>>>> >>>>> I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying >>>>> that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any "base" unit. >>>>> >>>>> I think what the FCC is doing is: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a >>>>> legal modular assembly is. >>>>> >>>>> 2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data >>>>> inputs, and power supply regulation. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Clarifying the definition of what a "split" modular assembly is. >>>>> >>>>> 4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a "split" >>>>> modular assembly must meet. >>>>> >>>>> Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system, I >>>>> don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard meets >>>>> the FCC's definition of a "split" modular assembly. I think the FCC >>>>> considers a "split" modular assembly to be where circuitry that today >>>>> would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now or in the >>>>> future) "split" between two different physical assemblies. This >>>>> splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one >>>>> "transmitter control element" (the new term that the FCC formerly >>>>> called the module "firmware") could theoretically be interfaced with >>>>> and control more than one "radio front end" (the amplifier and >>>>> antenna-connecting) section. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add >>>>> more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and >>>>> Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do >>>>> business. >>>>> >>>>> jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tim Kerns wrote: >>>>>> Am I reading this correctly Does this mean that if a mfg of a >>>>>> mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it then >>>>>> can be put into ANY base unit and be certified? >>>>>> >>>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been >>>>>> asking for? >>>>>> >>>>>> Tim >>>>>> >>>>>> - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM >>>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's >>>>>> Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just received this document and thought it might be of some >>>>>>> interest to the list. >>>>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Dawn DiPietro >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
t;>> >>>> 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a >>>> legal modular assembly is. >>>> >>>> 2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data >>>> inputs, and power supply regulation. >>>> >>>> 3. Clarifying the definition of what a "split" modular assembly is. >>>> >>>> 4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a "split" >>>> modular assembly must meet. >>>> >>>> Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system, >>>> I don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard >>>> meets the FCC's definition of a "split" modular assembly. I think >>>> the FCC considers a "split" modular assembly to be where circuitry >>>> that today would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now >>>> or in the future) "split" between two different physical >>>> assemblies. This splitting allows more equipment design flexibility >>>> because one "transmitter control element" (the new term that the >>>> FCC formerly called the module "firmware") could theoretically be >>>> interfaced with and control more than one "radio front end" (the >>>> amplifier and antenna-connecting) section. >>>> >>>> Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add >>>> more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and >>>> Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we >>>> do business. >>>> >>>> jack >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim Kerns wrote: >>>>> Am I reading this correctly Does this mean that if a mfg of a >>>>> mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it >>>>> then can be put into ANY base unit and be certified? >>>>> >>>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been >>>>> asking for? >>>>> >>>>> Tim >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: "WISPA General List" >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM >>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of >>>>> the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just received this document and thought it might be of some >>>>>> interest to the list. >>>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Dawn DiPietro >>>>>> -- >>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>> >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
> is doable. > >> I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered > >> to find it. This makes sense. Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with > >> a set of antennae. Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card. > >> Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an > >> antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9. > >> > >> Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base" unit, > >> we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna > >> and be good. The "gotcha" here is those sections of Part 15 I have > >> not yet followed up on. I am not sure what the "professional > >> installer" stuff is about. > >> > >> What am I missing or is this good news? > >> > >> Jack Unger wrote: > >>> Tim, > >>> > >>> I read the 2nd Report and Order and I don't see where it is saying > >>> that a certified mini PCI radio can be put into any "base" unit. > >>> > >>> I think what the FCC is doing is: > >>> > >>> 1. Providing eight criteria that clarify the definition of what a > >>> legal modular assembly is. > >>> > >>> 2. Allowing some flexibility regarding on-module shielding, data > >>> inputs, and power supply regulation. > >>> > >>> 3. Clarifying the definition of what a "split" modular assembly is. > >>> > >>> 4. Defining the (somewhat flexible) requirements that a "split" > >>> modular assembly must meet. > >>> > >>> Although a motherboard will certainly contain an operating system, I > >>> don't think that a mini PCI radio plugged into any motherboard meets > >>> the FCC's definition of a "split" modular assembly. I think the FCC > >>> considers a "split" modular assembly to be where circuitry that > >>> today would be contained on a single modular assembly is (now or in > >>> the future) "split" between two different physical assemblies. This > >>> splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one > >>> "transmitter control element" (the new term that the FCC formerly > >>> called the module "firmware") could theoretically be interfaced with > >>> and control more than one "radio front end" (the amplifier and > >>> antenna-connecting) section. > >>> > >>> Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add > >>> more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and > >>> Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do > >>> business. > >>> > >>> jack > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Tim Kerns wrote: > >>>> Am I reading this correctly Does this mean that if a mfg of a > >>>> mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it > >>>> then can be put into ANY base unit and be certified? > >>>> > >>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been > >>>> asking for? > >>>> > >>>> Tim > >>>> > >>>> - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> To: "WISPA General List" > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM > >>>> Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of > >>>> the,Commission's Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> All, > >>>>> > >>>>> I just received this document and thought it might be of some > >>>>> interest to the list. > >>>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> Dawn DiPietro > >>>>> -- > >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>>>> > >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>>> > >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Scott Reed > Owner > NewWays > Wireless Networking > Network Design, Installation and Administration > www.nwwnet.net > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.0/775 - Release Date: 4/24/2007 5:43 PM > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Modifications of =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_Parts_2_and_15_of_the, Commis?= sion’s Rules for unlicensed d evices and, equipment approval
bly is (now or in the >> future) "split" between two different physical assemblies. This >> splitting allows more equipment design flexibility because one >> "transmitter control element" (the new term that the FCC formerly >> called the module "firmware") could theoretically be interfaced with >> and control more than one "radio front end" (the amplifier and >> antenna-connecting) section. >> >> Of course, that's just my interpretation. I'll bet others could add >> more detail. The bottom line is - I don't think this 2nd Report and >> Order contains anything that will substantially change the way we do >> business. >> >> jack >> >> >> >> Tim Kerns wrote: >>> Am I reading this correctly Does this mean that if a mfg of a >>> mini pci radio gets it certified with different antenna, that it then >>> can be put into ANY base unit and be certified? >>> >>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this what we have been >>> asking for? >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 8:36 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission's >>> Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval >>> >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> I just received this document and thought it might be of some >>>> interest to the list. >>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-56A1.pdf >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dawn DiPietro >>>> -- >>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>> >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>> >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification Assistance for Wireless Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps
Jack, I am aware of your website, and also that you are available, on a paid basis, to help people with this process. It is a new business for you and I wish you well on it. As for the certs, yes, if a company chooses to keep some part of the process secret or proprietary, then the system cannot be built in an identical manner. That is simply not the case with the ADI Metro system, since they wish to help people. They will soon have the case for sale and they have assured me that the rest of the components will also be readily available. As I said, for software, the Atheros driver in conjunction with the cards controls the RF portion, thus almost any Linux software would be the same and would not need to be recertified. Atheros publish the country codes and part of the data structure is the allowable channels and power for each channel. If those are not modified, then the system is per Atheros already certified specifications. As for the 4.9 GHz bands, it was my understanding that the cards are the big thing and have to be certified. Again, the software merely puts the card into the band and it is up to the card for power and such. Not many common cards can exceed FCC guidelines, so it becomes a matter of an ability to reduce power below FCC allowable and not really an ability to set power above, since most cards cannot do that anyway. It is my stated belief that nobody needs more power anyway, unless of course they do not know what they are doing, and then they need all the power they can get. Lonnie Lonnie On 4/22/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, I have published a Certification FAQ http://ask-wi.com/certification.html that I believe addresses all of these questions. WISPA also has a Certification email list to further address these issues. That list is currently open only to WISPA members. Regarding using a copy of someone else's certified system; an EXACT copy can be legal however this is easier said than done because the company that pays for the certification may choose to keep some information confidential to preclude someone else from making an exact copy. Most well-run businesses would probably want to prevent other businesses from "sponging" off of them and competing unfairly and would not cooperate with competitor businesses. Of course, a group of WISPs could collaborate to share the certification costs, then agree to build EXACT (hardware and software) copies. Responsible manufacturers or organizations could even choose to publish EXACT descriptions of their already-certified products. Anyone building these exact copies must take responsibility for building an EXACT copy. The FCC can come inspect at any time. They can also request that anyone building a certified system (the original "Grantee" or someone "copying" a certified system) provide a sample system for the FCC to test to verify compliance with the originally certified system specs. I can't speak for WISPA but their Certification email list appears to be one possible vehicle that can be used to coordinate equipment needs and share certification costs. Regarding software, AFAIK every software update does not need to be recertified. The original system certification must be done using software that only allows the system to operate in FCC-legal frequency bands and at FCC-legal power levels. For example, a 5.8 GHz system could not ship with software that also allowed operation on 4.9 GHz or even on 5.4 GHz because the certification requirements for those two bands are different than 5.8 GHz. A two-band system would be legal (for example 5.4 and 5.8 GHz) if it was tested and verified to operate within FCC-legal specs on BOTH bands however today this would require a rather long test cycle because only the FCC lab is currently doing 5.4 GHz testing. AFAIK, if a certified system had a software fix come out to add security or to address software reliability issues, that would be legal as long as the RF characteristics weren't changed to allow operation on non-certified bands or on additional frequencies or at higher-than-originally certified power levels. If anyone has additional questions or corrections, please feel free to post them. Thanks, jack P.S. - Earlier tonight I emailed ADI Engineering asking for clarification regarding any fully-certified systems that they offer. Their website says that their MOTHERBOARDS have FCC Part 15 Class B certification but there is no mention of FCC Part 15 Subpart C certification which includes testing the motherboard with the wireless card(s) and the antenna(s). We need to use systems that have been tested and verified to meet both Class B and Subpart C requirements. Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Are you sure about this? Is this what ADI told you, personally? > > The Original Manufacturer assembles a system and has it certified with > that set of components and construction techniques.
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps
Are you sure about this? Is this what ADI told you, personally? The Original Manufacturer assembles a system and has it certified with that set of components and construction techniques. As long as the SAME parts and SAME techniques are used then this system should be certified. Of course the manufacturer must take responsibility and certify that proper components and techniques were used. As to software, there is a lot of leeway there. Most systems use Linux and all Atheros code is derived from the source code that people license from Atheros. The free madwifi drivers are still traceable and derived from Atheros source code. If you had to certify the exact software with the system, then it would be a nightmare and I believe that not a single manufacturer would currently be legal after they release a new image unless they would get each and every software release certified, as they must do for each hardware change. That would be excessive and would eventually make everybody illegal since software fixes are brought out rapidly to address security and reliability issues. Lonnie On 4/22/07, Tim Kerns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Matt, Is this latest news? The last I heard was adi had certified their board in their enclosure with a couple different antennas, but never heard what OS they were running. Also, to be certified you would have to purchase the units pre-assembled from ADI. Remember the certification goes to the manufacturer. - Original Message - From: "Matt Larsen - Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps > Wrong. > > ADI Engineering has a certified StarOS/War Board combo, with a choice of > cards. I am currently evaluating them for my future backhauls. > > Matt Larsen > vistabeam.com > > > Smith, Rick wrote: >> Nope, not FCC certified. What Mikrotik / Star-OS systems are ? None. >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro >> Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:15 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps >> >> Rick, >> >> Can you tell me if this system you suggested is FCC Certified? >> >> Regards, >> Dawn DiPietro >> >> >> Smith, Rick wrote: >> >>> use an XR5 (ubiquity) card as radios, with mikrotik, a 24 dbi panel on >>> the aesthetic end from pac wireless. >>> 3' dish on the other end. You'll have more than enough margin. >>> >>> Don't ever ever ever use an amp on anything. you only amplify your >>> problems. >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> On >> >>> Behalf Of Mark Nash >>> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 7:28 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] 5GHz Amps >>> >>> I'm needing to do a 14-mile link at 5.8GHz. I will have to use a >>> 15"-or-so flat panel antenna due to building owner's asthetics >>> requirements. On this 8-story building, I'll mount to the side of the >>> masonry, then I'll have about 25 feet of LMR-400 from the antenna to a >>> weatherproof enclosure with 110v power. >>> >>> On the other side I'll be 100' up on a tower on a hilltop, and I can >>> >> use >> >>> a higher-gain antenna. >>> >>> I believe I'll have to use an amplifier to achieve this. >>> >>> Soo... >>> >>> A) Am I incorrect about this? >>> >>> B) If I'm correct, what 5GHz amps have you found to be effective? >>> >>> C) Opinions on using regular or bi-directional amps? >>> >>> Mark Nash >>> Network Engineer >>> UnwiredOnline.Net >>> 350 Holly Street >>> Junction City, OR 97448 >>> http://www.uwol.net >>> 541-998- >>> 541-998-5599 fax >>> >> >> > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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 Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition
Except that the SAME wisps were dealing with the top 5 or 6 vendors, so your count is quite inflated. Lonnie On 4/20/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In case you missed it in an earlier email. I called the top 5 or 6 vendors in the WISP space and pestered them till they told me how many providers they had on the books as WISPs. MUCH more accurate than the 477 and a similar or more comprehensive effort by the FCC would take someone all over a day or two. That help? Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Admits Mistakes In Measuring Broadband Competition > Doesn't explain where you got the 3000 or 6000 number. > > If you pulled it out of your.. air... then you are doing a disservice. > If the number is really 900, and 300 fill out the form - that's 1/3 and > great. Even though it is disappointed that there are only 900 indie ISP's > left. > If the number is 3000 and 300 fill it out, that is awful. > But if the number is 6000, then this industry is all cowboy - and the FCC > will not take kindly to that.. > > Be careful what number you use. > > > BTW, many of the Internet Providers aren't even in access any more. They > are hosting, managed services, ASP, SAAS, etc. but still associate > themselves as ISPs. This doesn't help the count either because those guys > don't have to complete any forms. Plus virtual ISP's who don't have to > fill out forms either (the wholesaler does). So - again - be careful with > the number. > > Regards, > > Peter > > > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > >> Yeah. But the FCC is also to blame. The form is ridiculously >> complicated. And how many are really gonna fill it out? The FCC needs to >> really do research beyond asking the public to provide input. >> >> Unfortunately, we'll likely never really know till there is a tax on >> broadband connections. People are pretty good about paying the >> appropriate taxes. >> >> Or, at the very least, the FCC needs to start going after those that >> won't fill out the form. >> >> It's a screwy deal. In the end, does it even matter? The public outcry >> has died out long ago. Now it's just political posturing and >> handwringing. The consumer's problems are largely gone. The ACCESS to >> broadband is very high in most of the country. Who care's about the >> DEPLOYMENT rate other than us that are deeply involved in the industry. >> >> Mostly, everyone is worried about a mole hill that some are trying to >> turn into a government funded mountain. >> >> Marlon > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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 many of you actually use your own service?
We use our own service which supplies just over 250 users spanning 120 km of the Robson Valley in BC. I cannot stress enough how important that is to be able to see problems immediately and not just be taking calls to describe the situation. We are more fortunate than most in that we also write our own code and put our own boxes together so we get to optimize it in response to the problems we see. The real world is a way better test bed than the lab. Lonnie On 4/9/07, Ryan Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I always tell my clients that I use my own service and that I will usually know before they do that things are slow or not working because my family will call me MUCH faster than any client. This builds trust with my clients. ... Recently I was emailed by another WISP in my area and I noticed the CEO was NOT using his own serviceStrange So with all this being said, I was wondering... how many of you use your own service? ryan -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Google's New Broadband service!
So is April 1st. Lonnie On 4/1/07, D. Ryan Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Surfs up! http://www.google.com/tisp/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...
l)? > > By physically looking at the LEDs or via telnet or SNMP. > > Are there any utility's or built in tools that the AP or SM have for > troubleshooting? > > BreezeCONFIG has exhaustive trouble shooting means. New users from other > brands are usually blown away (again, you can talk to some) > > > Do the SM and AP have a log that we can see information about interfaces > and traffic? > > There's a question I do not know the answer to, but I can find out. > Obviously not like a packet shaper though. > > > Is the throughput at the SM level effected by the RSSI value? > > This is true of all wireless products - it is not a brand question and > the answer is "Yes." > > Is the throughput at the SM level effected by distance? > > Same as above. > > > Yea, that's it for now! (: > > Whew, that took a while. But it was a good exercise for me > anyway. I'm happy to say I could answer most without looking at the > manual. Not bad for a non-tech. > > > Regards, > > > Patrick > > > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >viruses(190). > > > > > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp >Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >viruses(42). > > > > > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp >Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >viruses(84). > > > > > > > >This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer >viruses. > > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] tower climbing
I would just put in the missing 20 feet of pegs. It seems the safest. Lonnie On 3/11/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First, I'd shoot the id10t that built it that way. Next, I'd bolt a cross arm of some kind up there so you'll have something to stand on when you move from one leg to the other. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Bob Moldashel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] tower climbing > Looks like someone was not paying attention when they installed it. You > just gotta get balls of steel and slide over. Down one cross member and > up another. We do it all the time. > > BTW: Be careful... :-) > > -B- > > > > > > Travis Johnson wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am looking for some advice on the proper climbing technique for a new >> tower we just installed on. Over the past 10 years, I have climbed >> hundreds of towers including free standing, guyed, 40ft to 120ft without >> any problems or fears. However this new tower is much more difficult. I >> believe it's a Rohn 200ft free standing tower with 3 legs. The issue is >> there are only foot pegs on one leg up to the 80ft level... then the pegs >> start on another leg and go up from 80ft to the top. Getting from one leg >> to another at the 80ft level is the challenge. As you can see from the >> picture, the gap from the top brace to the bottom brace is almost 10feet >> in the center (I am 6'1"). >> >> http://www.ida.net/users/tlj/teton.JPG >> >> Anyone have any suggestions on a better way to accomplish the leg to leg >> movements across the braces? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Travis >> Microserv > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Some opinions
Are you the guy to see about Internet down there? If my passport gets here in time I'll be there after the 15th and will need Internet. Lonnie On 3/2/07, Carlos A. Garcia G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks i 'll check this info, best regards, if you guyst ever come to cabo san lucas mexico, i'll be your guide John J. Thomas escribió: > Carlos, if you put Cisco AP1242's in Nema boxes, you can alternate 2.4 and 5.8 GHz, thus using only 5 radios. > > John > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Carlos A. Garcia G [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 11:40 AM >> To: 'WISPA General List' >> Subject: [WISPA] Some opinions >> >> Hi i have 2 offices that i have to connect to do this i nedd to use the >> 3 points between them >> >> Office1--> P1-->P2-->P3-->Office2 >> >> do any of you know what equipments can connect without using too many >> products for example to do that with cisco 1300 wireless >> bridges i need to use 8 radios and i want to use 5 >> >> Office--> <-P1-><-P2-><-P3-> <--Office2 >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
Telcos cannot cover the sort of area we as a WISP can cover. Sure they can take the low hanging fruit, but I see it is similar to the gold rush days. The first guys cashed out big, and the well financed guys bought the best fields and made a mint. A LOT of gold was recovered by very ambitious and patient people who went over the grounds that were too barren or difficult for the big guys. We are those patient guys. We work harder and the rewards are not as large as the early days, but we are doing just fine. To put it in perspective, I know a lot of people who work harder and make less money. In that respect we are doing OK. I provide high speed Internet to people who cannot even get a phone line from the Telco. Sure they rode into town with ADSL and denied me faster than a T1 for 2 years while they converted about 2/3 of our dialup users to ADSL, but we have a higher potential for the people the Telco simply CANNOT service. We now have a 35 mbps fibre and the world looks bright. The silver lining to losing the dial up customers is that without the Telco coming in we would still have a T1. The other thing we all have going for us is that we can embrace new technology right away and not wait 10 years for it to become a commodity item. If you are willing to take advantage of new technology you will succeed. The market is there. You just have to go after it. Lonnie On 2/20/07, Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Telcos. They're going to get what they want @ the FCC, which is to put the little guys out of business. It'll just be a matter of time and money, and we don't have much of either. Of course, wasn't it Marlon that said that that's what people said about us 5 yrs ago and here we are, still, today ? Look at it this way. If you're building to sell, you're building fast and furious right now, just to put yourself in the way of the next one that comes along. At some point you're going to amass enough users to make it more attractive to the Verizons and the SBC's of the world to just buy you out instead of marketing to all your customers, who are really happy campers and don't WANT to switch. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wispa Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:53 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... And, who ISN'T building to sell right now ? The ones > building to own / operate are going to get run out in the next 3 yrs. > I'm curious about why you think this, Rick... -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
An asset is something that you own. I consider anything that is not paid for to be a liability. An asset that you own can be enjoyed and can make money for you. If it is paid for in a mere two to three months is this not a worthy investment, especially if it can provide a profit for years to come? Lonnie On 2/20/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We own the CPE gear so we consider it an investment. My view is, what good is an asset if no one will lend against it? Good luck with your ventures. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
Travis, I don't make untrue statements. Please don't say that. I said we charge a $150 install fee and $30 a month, bringing the total cash flow to $150 + $30 +30 = $210. The Client side gear is $184 Quantity 1 and that leaves a small fee for my install guy who is an employee. I'm maybe 3 months to profit if you figure his costs, but who cares about a month here and there. We are talking an employees time and that is his job. It is a cost of doing business and I do not apportion it to each install. The bottom line is that I get ALL of my cash money returned on the customer's second monthly payment then after that it is profit. If we make that 4 months we are still WAY better than a Telco ROI, but you have to be an accountant to get that picky. We are quite profitable as a WISP and we can now even afford a 30 mbps fibre. The old over priced T1 days are LONG gone. Lonnie On 2/20/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, This is not a true statement if your CPE is costing you $150 (which seems a little low after antenna, pigtails, misc. hardware like zip ties, weatherproof, mounts, etc.) you are breaking even on the equipment. Then you still have the truck roll, insurance, gas, employee, etc. which could be $50 to $100 per install... so really you are out 3-4 months or longer... which means for a quickly growing company you are in trouble because you aren't profitable for 3-4 months. :( Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > We own the CPE gear so we consider it an investment. We charge a flat > $150 install fee and $30 a month. We pay for the gear in 2 months and > we are straight profit after that. If the Telcos had their ROI that > good they would be dancing. > > Lonnie > > On 2/20/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Equipment leasing? Every install for us is a break-even (after truck >> roll, installing a firewall/router/AP for free, etc.) and we start >> making money on every customer on their first monthly payment. :) >> >> Just a thought. >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Matt Liotta wrote: >> > Most service providers never make it much past break even because of >> > the high fixed costs in this business. Fill up one T1 with customers >> > and the second one is the same price as the first. You have to be able >> > to support large volumes just to change cost ratios. Then you have >> > things like CALEA that come along at change the cost equation. I've >> > heard from a number of people who's business plans can't support >> > CALEA. I am rambling a bit, but my point is that fresh capital could >> > be just the thing a break even business needs. How else do you punch >> > through to the next level? >> > >> > -Matt >> > >> > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: >> >> If you broke even but had a partner who did not help very much, then >> >> my feeling is you should just stay on the course you have and the >> >> profit will happen. If you bring in new money and new people my >> >> feeling is you stand a chance you'll just end up with more of the >> >> same. Trying to meet too many expectations is not a good thing and >> >> ruins your focus. >> >> >> >> Lonnie >> >> >> >> On 2/20/07, Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> yep, rural NJ. Northern. ALL hills, ALL trees. >> >>> >> >>> Doin ok so far, about break even on 300k over 4 yrs, but need a >> >>> payoff, and >> >>> now I'm lookin at some private investors who are interested. >> >>> >> >>> I need to get a feel on realistic projections. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -Original Message- >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> >>> Behalf Of Joe Laura >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:10 AM >> >>> To: WISPA General List >> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... >> >>> >> >>> I wish we would have had funding. Just hard work, 7 days a week, 14 >> >>> hour >> >>> days until things started rolling. Eventually made ends meet and >> then >> >>> actually started seeing some profits at some point. Advertising is a >> >>> mystery. Its like certain wireless gear. It might work in some areas >> >>> but not >> >>> others. Are you in a rural area? >> >>> Superior Wireless >> >>> New Orleans,La. &g
Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
We own the CPE gear so we consider it an investment. We charge a flat $150 install fee and $30 a month. We pay for the gear in 2 months and we are straight profit after that. If the Telcos had their ROI that good they would be dancing. Lonnie On 2/20/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Equipment leasing? Every install for us is a break-even (after truck roll, installing a firewall/router/AP for free, etc.) and we start making money on every customer on their first monthly payment. :) Just a thought. Travis Microserv Matt Liotta wrote: > Most service providers never make it much past break even because of > the high fixed costs in this business. Fill up one T1 with customers > and the second one is the same price as the first. You have to be able > to support large volumes just to change cost ratios. Then you have > things like CALEA that come along at change the cost equation. I've > heard from a number of people who's business plans can't support > CALEA. I am rambling a bit, but my point is that fresh capital could > be just the thing a break even business needs. How else do you punch > through to the next level? > > -Matt > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: >> If you broke even but had a partner who did not help very much, then >> my feeling is you should just stay on the course you have and the >> profit will happen. If you bring in new money and new people my >> feeling is you stand a chance you'll just end up with more of the >> same. Trying to meet too many expectations is not a good thing and >> ruins your focus. >> >> Lonnie >> >> On 2/20/07, Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> yep, rural NJ. Northern. ALL hills, ALL trees. >>> >>> Doin ok so far, about break even on 300k over 4 yrs, but need a >>> payoff, and >>> now I'm lookin at some private investors who are interested. >>> >>> I need to get a feel on realistic projections. >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Joe Laura >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:10 AM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... >>> >>> I wish we would have had funding. Just hard work, 7 days a week, 14 >>> hour >>> days until things started rolling. Eventually made ends meet and then >>> actually started seeing some profits at some point. Advertising is a >>> mystery. Its like certain wireless gear. It might work in some areas >>> but not >>> others. Are you in a rural area? >>> Superior Wireless >>> New Orleans,La. >>> www.superior1.com >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "'WISPA General List'" ; "'Principal WISPA >>> Member >>> List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:51 PM >>> Subject: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... >>> >>> >>> > Couple questions for you: >>> > >>> > 1) How did you get funding ? >>> > >>> > 2) How many customers are you up to so far ? >>> > >>> > 3) How many installations per month / week / day ? >>> > >>> > 4) How did they find you ? Advertising methods... >>> > >>> > >>> > I'm in the middle of rebuilding my company from the disaster it's >>> been in >>> > because of a deadbeat partner, and these questions (and more) came >>> up at a >>> > meeting of the minds tonight. I figured no better place to get >>> the answer >>> > than existing WISPs. >>> > >>> > Offlist, if need be. This will be private for me only, just for >>> > information. >>> > >>> > thanks >>> > >>> > R >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> > >>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> > >>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
Matt, he said he got rid of a useless partner, thus no loss of manpower and added capital. Raising funds is not easy and requires a lot of paperwork and letting a stranger into your life in a very personal way. Since he is at the break even point and has straightened out some issues my best advice is still to simply keep going and the profit will happen. As for the volume thing, that method rarely works and you must make a profit on every subscriber, no matter how many you have. You are not Santa Claus and there is no free lunch, so basically, if a subscriber will create a loss for you, simply do not accept them. If you get enough customers that are losing you money you go broke. If you accept fewer customers who make you money then you survive. I know it hurts the pride to walk away from a customer but in the end, if you go broke, you'll be walking away from a whole bunch of them and maybe your house, car, and family as well. Given those choices I'll choose to walk away from the customer. Lonnie On 2/20/07, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Most service providers never make it much past break even because of the high fixed costs in this business. Fill up one T1 with customers and the second one is the same price as the first. You have to be able to support large volumes just to change cost ratios. Then you have things like CALEA that come along at change the cost equation. I've heard from a number of people who's business plans can't support CALEA. I am rambling a bit, but my point is that fresh capital could be just the thing a break even business needs. How else do you punch through to the next level? -Matt Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > If you broke even but had a partner who did not help very much, then > my feeling is you should just stay on the course you have and the > profit will happen. If you bring in new money and new people my > feeling is you stand a chance you'll just end up with more of the > same. Trying to meet too many expectations is not a good thing and > ruins your focus. > > Lonnie > > On 2/20/07, Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> yep, rural NJ. Northern. ALL hills, ALL trees. >> >> Doin ok so far, about break even on 300k over 4 yrs, but need a >> payoff, and >> now I'm lookin at some private investors who are interested. >> >> I need to get a feel on realistic projections. >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Joe Laura >> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:10 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... >> >> I wish we would have had funding. Just hard work, 7 days a week, 14 hour >> days until things started rolling. Eventually made ends meet and then >> actually started seeing some profits at some point. Advertising is a >> mystery. Its like certain wireless gear. It might work in some areas >> but not >> others. Are you in a rural area? >> Superior Wireless >> New Orleans,La. >> www.superior1.com >> - Original Message - >> From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" ; "'Principal WISPA >> Member >> List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:51 PM >> Subject: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... >> >> >> > Couple questions for you: >> > >> > 1) How did you get funding ? >> > >> > 2) How many customers are you up to so far ? >> > >> > 3) How many installations per month / week / day ? >> > >> > 4) How did they find you ? Advertising methods... >> > >> > >> > I'm in the middle of rebuilding my company from the disaster it's >> been in >> > because of a deadbeat partner, and these questions (and more) came >> up at a >> > meeting of the minds tonight. I figured no better place to get the >> answer >> > than existing WISPs. >> > >> > Offlist, if need be. This will be private for me only, just for >> > information. >> > >> > thanks >> > >> > R >> > >> > >> > -- >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year...
If you broke even but had a partner who did not help very much, then my feeling is you should just stay on the course you have and the profit will happen. If you bring in new money and new people my feeling is you stand a chance you'll just end up with more of the same. Trying to meet too many expectations is not a good thing and ruins your focus. Lonnie On 2/20/07, Rick Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yep, rural NJ. Northern. ALL hills, ALL trees. Doin ok so far, about break even on 300k over 4 yrs, but need a payoff, and now I'm lookin at some private investors who are interested. I need to get a feel on realistic projections. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Laura Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:10 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... I wish we would have had funding. Just hard work, 7 days a week, 14 hour days until things started rolling. Eventually made ends meet and then actually started seeing some profits at some point. Advertising is a mystery. Its like certain wireless gear. It might work in some areas but not others. Are you in a rural area? Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" ; "'Principal WISPA Member List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] For those in business just about a year... > Couple questions for you: > > 1) How did you get funding ? > > 2) How many customers are you up to so far ? > > 3) How many installations per month / week / day ? > > 4) How did they find you ? Advertising methods... > > > I'm in the middle of rebuilding my company from the disaster it's been in > because of a deadbeat partner, and these questions (and more) came up at a > meeting of the minds tonight. I figured no better place to get the answer > than existing WISPs. > > Offlist, if need be. This will be private for me only, just for > information. > > thanks > > R > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
Precisely why X2 cloaking is so important. It doubles the number of channels and X4 gives 11 of them back to us. X4 gives about 7 mbps with non compressible data and over 12 mbps with compressible data. Better than a standard B model with perfect conditions. The other thing to keep in mind is that all of those channel 6 units attached to ADSL lines are typically unused or lightly used. They connect with an ADSL line and thus cannot even begin to consume the total air time. The Telco here is distributing units with 400 mW radaios whether the client even wants wireless in their home. It does not even phase a cloaked connection so we are OK with it. Lonnie On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There USED to be three non overlapping channels. Now channel 6 overlaps with every third house in many markets :-). Marlon - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:10 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations > Standard Wifi has 3 channels that do not overlap. X4 cloaking has 6 > channels that do not overlap and X4 cloaking has 11 channels that do > not overlap. > > We use 4 WLM-54G radios in a WAR4 and have seen no great issues unless > two active radios are on the same channel. I am not sure about 6 but > I know for sure that 4 works fine. Incidentally the SR9 has almost NO > leakage. Even with the cards side by side they will not link up. In > order to get anything from them you need a pigtail and an antenna. > > Lonnie > > On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd recommend against that idea Matt. ALL devices leak some energy. And >> the amount of interference you'll create for yourself at inches vs. feet >> is >> amazing. If you can keep things 3 feet apart there is much less energy, >> small small fractions in fact. >> >> Alvarion with their FHSS gear can get away with such things because they >> can >> always stay enough hopping channels away from near by radios. FHSS has >> 72 >> (or is it only 70?) channels to choose from. WiFi has basically 2 these >> days. >> >> Where this one gets hard to explain is that people build such critters, >> test >> them in the lap and then say that they work. Life will change >> dramatically >> however, once installed into a working system AND with the addition of >> real >> customers with real traffic. >> >> laters, >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations >> >> >> >I thought you were already working with Deliberant on just such an >> >animal. >> >Where are you guys with that? I know they have a dual radio unit capable >> >of >> >5 GHz and 2.4 GHz in the same box. >> > Scriv >> > >> > >> > Matt Liotta wrote: >> > >> >> We don't do much Wi-Fi, so I figured I would ask the list. If I wanted >> >> to >> >> deploy a number of Wi-Fi radios at the same location what kind of >> >> setups >> >> are available? I am looking for something where I can deploy one >> >> physical >> >> box that has multiple radios as opposed to a single box per radio. >> >> Ideally, it would be something modular where I can have a variable >> >> number >> >> of radio interfaces by simply adding cards. >> >> >> >> Does anything like that exist? >> >> >> >> -Matt >> > >> > -- >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
Jack, Of course the throughput on 4 cards is not 4 times the throughput on a single card. The processors cannot handle that at this time. It needs more than a 533 to drive 4 Atheros cards to full throughput and then you have the limitation that most units today are only using 100 mbps Ethernet. The current systems are not perfect but they represent an improvement. We are pretty confident that there will soon be more powerful embedded units that can drive 4 cards to full throughput. As usual we work with the tools we are given. When I said no great issues, I thought the very next sentence qualified that with the requirement that they not use the same channels. I'd have to disagree and say that if they don't link up then they have no appreciable leakage and thus will not interfere to any great extent. Don't forget that Spread Spectrum by its very nature is able to handle some interference and not degrade. The way we look at it is that a single unit with 4 cards is much easier to deploy and the configuration is much easier to setup. Routing is easier and the kernel can pass data between radios rather than going in/out Ethernet ports for a repeater use. Our standard AP deployment is to use X2 cloaking with 10 MHz wide RF to give us 6 channels with no overlap. We use 2 WLM-54G cards for 2.4 GHz and 2 SR9 for 900 MHz on a 4 port unit. It might not be "optimum" but in our experience it beats the last generation of systems with singles using a switch at the tower base. We get all of that with less than 8 Watts of normal power draw and about 12 to 15 Watts under high load. This means my batteries can last for a very long time and we have 40% of our repeater sites on Solar Power only, with no real requirement to consider commercial power, which is good, because some of the sites cannot get it anyway. There might be better units out there, but any we have looked at are a lot more money and they draw a lot more power. For the intended use these are good enough and in fact exceed our requirements, which means they exceed what the average ISP will need as well. If someone needs absolute maximum on 4 radios at the same time then all they have to do is use multiple units, but for an average set of AP's with residential and light commercial customers there is no need to get that complicated. Lonnie On 2/15/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, Just so I understand your information more completely... What is the definition of "no great issues". Does this mean that when all four radios in one box were tested running at full throughput the aggregate throughput was equal to four times the maximum throughput of one radio running in a box all by itself? Also, there is a difference between side-by-side cards that don't link up and side-by-side cards that are interference-free. The leakage level needed for cards to link up is higher than the leakage level where cards will mutually interfere with each other. It's possible for the leakage level to be high enough to interfere and cause throughput reduction but still be below the leakage level that will enable linking up. If simultaneous all-card throughput testing has been done and you're getting full throughput from each card simultaneously then either you've done excellent engineering, grounding, and shielding work OR the cards ARE exceptionally well shielded and there are no motherboard or backplane leakage issues. Thanks, jack Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Standard Wifi has 3 channels that do not overlap. X4 cloaking has 6 > channels that do not overlap and X4 cloaking has 11 channels that do > not overlap. > > We use 4 WLM-54G radios in a WAR4 and have seen no great issues unless > two active radios are on the same channel. I am not sure about 6 but > I know for sure that 4 works fine. Incidentally the SR9 has almost NO > leakage. Even with the cards side by side they will not link up. In > order to get anything from them you need a pigtail and an antenna. > > Lonnie > > On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'd recommend against that idea Matt. ALL devices leak some energy. And >> the amount of interference you'll create for yourself at inches vs. >> feet is >> amazing. If you can keep things 3 feet apart there is much less energy, >> small small fractions in fact. >> >> Alvarion with their FHSS gear can get away with such things because >> they can >> always stay enough hopping channels away from near by radios. FHSS >> has 72 >> (or is it only 70?) channels to choose from. WiFi has basically 2 these >> days. >> >> Where this one gets hard to explain is that people build such >> critters, test >> them in the lap and then say that they work. Life will change >> dramatical
Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations
Standard Wifi has 3 channels that do not overlap. X4 cloaking has 6 channels that do not overlap and X4 cloaking has 11 channels that do not overlap. We use 4 WLM-54G radios in a WAR4 and have seen no great issues unless two active radios are on the same channel. I am not sure about 6 but I know for sure that 4 works fine. Incidentally the SR9 has almost NO leakage. Even with the cards side by side they will not link up. In order to get anything from them you need a pigtail and an antenna. Lonnie On 2/15/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd recommend against that idea Matt. ALL devices leak some energy. And the amount of interference you'll create for yourself at inches vs. feet is amazing. If you can keep things 3 feet apart there is much less energy, small small fractions in fact. Alvarion with their FHSS gear can get away with such things because they can always stay enough hopping channels away from near by radios. FHSS has 72 (or is it only 70?) channels to choose from. WiFi has basically 2 these days. Where this one gets hard to explain is that people build such critters, test them in the lap and then say that they work. Life will change dramatically however, once installed into a working system AND with the addition of real customers with real traffic. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] multi-radio Wi-Fi base stations >I thought you were already working with Deliberant on just such an animal. >Where are you guys with that? I know they have a dual radio unit capable of >5 GHz and 2.4 GHz in the same box. > Scriv > > > Matt Liotta wrote: > >> We don't do much Wi-Fi, so I figured I would ask the list. If I wanted to >> deploy a number of Wi-Fi radios at the same location what kind of setups >> are available? I am looking for something where I can deploy one physical >> box that has multiple radios as opposed to a single box per radio. >> Ideally, it would be something modular where I can have a variable number >> of radio interfaces by simply adding cards. >> >> Does anything like that exist? >> >> -Matt > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need an all temp ap with very small size
Compex was fully certified for the antennas you used? hmmm Lonnie On 2/12/07, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, I have a water tower that's kicking my tail. I've been through a slug of sb and inscape and compex ap's. Everything works for a little while then either outright dies or starts flaking out. Power seems to be fine, and there are NO pumps at this local. I've got grounding and lightning protection out the wazzoo. I need to try a different ap. There's not much room in the box up top though. I'll need a really small device. It needs to be able to handle at least 120* to -30* f. I was thinking of Cisco or Lucent. Any bright ideas? Don't say MT or StarOS. I want a certified device.. No home brew up there. thanks, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
We have not tested with very many high power cards. Using the right antenna we can go 52 miles with a CM9, so high power is not a hot topic here. Our approach to NLOS is more to use microcells to fill in areas that cannot see the main towers. Since we can do a repeater with 1 msec ping times it is no big deal to hop through a few repeaters to hit an area and the prices are way cheaper than the late '90's. Lonnie On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Lonnie, that was helpful. Have you tested StarOS with the Teletronic's HighPower Card? Actually, I just looked at the Teletronic cards... They are Z-Com xg-622H (G-only) I was real surprise on the results that differed from SR2s. I'd love to use the Teletronics, just because they are cheaper (like $75), and Teletronics is located 5 miles from our office, with tons of inventory!! :-) I'm wondering if the SR2 is a bi-directional Amp, and the Z-Com one-way TX only? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards. Our driver sets the output power using an electronics "volume control" that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates. The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier. We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power. Lonnie On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting power levels to > cards that adapative modulate. > Specifically related to Cards with on board AMPs. To be more clear > > A SR2 may be speced at 26db at 1-24 mbps, but 24db at 36mbps, and 22db at > 48-56mb. > My unconfirmed understanding is, that the SR2 adds about 8db via an > onboard > external amp beyond what the card is actually set to. > So if the card is set to 16db, it will have an output power of 24db in > theory. However, its not that simple because the output power will change > based on modulation. > Does STAROS drivers set the power as the constant power regardless of what > modulation? Or does it set the TOP power? Does the power on the card only > change if modulation drops and the power is set higher than power it > suppoed > to drop to? The radio card has no knowledge of what DB antenna is > connected > to it. And are the onboard AMPs a set output or variable output AMP? The > point that I'm making is, how can we set the card to near MAX levels, but > guarantee that they will never transmit above the allowed EIRP? If I have > the conclusive answer to that question, then I can reduce the power to the > lowest level needed for a good link, with headroom capabilty if > emergencies > occur, but more importantly, I can document what the top allowable setting > should be for that specific configuration of a radio, so when an > emergencies > occurs, my novice staff does not break the rules inadvertently. > > It gets more confusing with multiple manufacturer AMPs. Because we need to > have knowledge of what type of AMP is added to the card. (variable or > not). > And also what input power level its expecting to minimize internal > distortion. I can give an example of a test I ran yesterday using a SR2 > (400mw) and a Teletronic 22db (approx 150mw) High Power card. I thought > the > chipsets were near the same. I got really weird results. The AP had an > SR2. > THe radios were hard set at 24mbps for testing. At the SU we tried using > both a SR2 and Teletronics. The SR2 had 10db lower signal at the AP than > SU, unexplained. The Teletronics had 5 db lower signal at the SU than AP. > The SR2 had 15 db higher SU gain than the Teletronics SU, at MAX power > setting. Now I'm assuming that the SR2 was heavilly being overpowered > during > the short brief test, and we set it down to 16db power in STAROS. Why did > this occured differently for the Teleronics Atheros? Is there onboard AMP > a > different type than the SR2? Or less filtering? Or worse sensitivity? The > power levels also varied significantly based on what level cloaking used, > so > we were concerned on whether both cards, equaly cloaked. The
Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
gt;>>space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it does. >>>>> >>>>>jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Steve Stroh wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Jack: >>>>>> >>>>>>Consider... >>>>>> >>>>>>To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a "we'll >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity" manner >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has been >>>>>>steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of Channels >>>>>>70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of Channels >>>>>>52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for powerful >>>>>>terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power >>>>>>license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use to do >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears they >>>>>>are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very much >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white space >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast spectrum >>>>>>sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least another >>>>>>decade or so). >>>>>> >>>>>>Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied about as >>>>>>advocates for license-exempt use of white space television broadcast >>>>>>spectrum. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Likelihood of unlicensed??? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My guess is that the established communications carriers and the >>>>>>>broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this >>>>>>>space. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most effectively. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>>>>>Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 >>>>>>>Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >>>>>>>True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting >>>>>>>Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html >>>>>>>Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>--- >>>>>> >>>>>>Steve Stroh >>>>>>425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>George Rogato >>> >>>Welcome to WISPA >>> >>>www.wispa.org >>> >>>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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
No you don't. wpci1: atheros100 -73dbm -96dbm 23 2442 sta,U1,x200:80:48:39:8e:42 war-platform ~ > starutil 10.10.251.1 password -rx rx rate: 1220 KB/sec (Press Ctrl-C to exit) war-platform ~ > war-platform ~ > traceroute -n 10.10.251.1 traceroute to 10.10.251.1 (10.10.251.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 10.10.67.1 5.532 ms 10.319 ms 4.523 ms 2 10.10.12.5 6.805 ms 11.779 ms 4.623 ms 3 10.10.227.1 5.018 ms 6.86 ms 5.174 ms 4 10.10.226.254 5.307 ms 7.747 ms 5.948 ms 5 10.10.251.1 8.279 ms 12.21 ms 5.814 ms This is the client at 13 miles in X2 cloaking. The AP is a 16 dB 60 degree sector and the client is a 24 dB grid. If this were an AP in the middle I could just as easily use a 15 dB omni and achieve almost identical results. Both units have a Compex WLM-54SuperG radio. No high power, no amplifiers. I don't need it and neither do you. An amplifier adds noise and worse, it increases the time to transition from tx to rx, which requires that you use long preamble which slows performance down. The worst thing it adds is signal, which you do not need and which messes up areas outside your coverage. You have been using amps for so long you just believe you always have to use them. A lot of companies have made a lot of money selling unnecessary amplifiers and they prey on the guys who do not know any better. That is fine normally and you would just laugh at the guy for not knowing better, but when that guy is in the same area as you are trying to serve, then it is not funny. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: with sites that have 10 users in a 15 mile RADIUS, you have to have an amp marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > Amps? > > The success of G is less noise and less power. IMHO > > Never looked for a G amp or tried a G high powered card. > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >> Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> >>> Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots >>> of B ap's. >>> >>> Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. >>> Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. >>> >>> The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with >>> omni's and sectors all over the place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mac Dearman wrote: >>> >>>> How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement >>>> G, >>>> but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients >>>> running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would >>>> be >>>> trouble in Paradise here!! >>>> >>>> Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple >>>> antennas on one tower?) >>>> >>>> Mac >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM >>>> To: WISPA General List >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >>>> >>>> Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. >>>> G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B >>>> requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. >>>> >>>> Lonnie >>>> >>>> On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install >>>>> today are G. >>>>> 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. >>>>> 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection >>>>> and >>>>> even low 80's beat B. >>>>> >>>>> B stands for Bad >>>>> G stands for Good >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>&g
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
I believe I said we use reduced X2 cloaking for reduced RF spectrum usage, which you do not use because you have older gear or software that does not support it. You even agreed that reduced bandwidth works but that you chose not to use it. G mode does not have to play nice with B gear and that is why the newer drivers have selections for b only, b/g mixed or g only, so you cannot kill a G system with a single B client. If you simply replace that B client with a modern system you'll not have the troubles you do now. In my role of supporting people, I spend the bulk of my time dealing with people trying to make older B only systems work. They have reached the end of life simply due to the amount of B mode use out there. X2 cloaking extends the life of 2.4 GHz and in many cases is simply a software upgrade to get that new capability. It could also require an Atheros card to replace a prism or Orinoco and in more than a few cases it will require outright replacement of the entire system. You can't make a half hearted attempt at doing this. It is all or nothing. Try G mode with X2 cloaking and move over more and more big users to it. They will be happy and you will spend less time doing tech support. Even in a quiet environment X2 cloaking is still the way to go. Having double the number of non overlapping channels means much more spectrum to play with. X2 cloaking gives slightly higher power output, better receive sensitivity and higher digital processing conversion gain due to the reduced number OFDM RF carriers. It is superior. Simple. I do understand why people don't want to hear that. They have been operating on the basis that they were doing the right thing and they were making money, so they had it right. In reality they have been duped by the manufacturers who could not figure out how to do it right, or who made more money flogging last gen technology. So don't get mad at me, get mad at the guys who sold you your current B only client gear. They are the ones who mislead you. I'm just the messenger and the guy with a better system. You want what I have but you are angry that your current gear does not do it. I am on one location that has 7 other Access Points all beaming to the same town site. Nothing works if we use standard 20 MHz channels. X2 cloaking works on pretty much any channel I wish to use and I use 4 of those, so the total is 11 radios in 2.4 GHz from that site and all going to the same general location. My stuff works and I think their stuff works because we are just noise to them, and the whole concept of spread spectrum is not being bothered by noise. This is why I said B is dead and G is the new thing, simply because of the cloaking ability. If more people switched to cloaking then even the standard stuff would be better. This is sort of like the way 900 MHz is rebounding because nobody is using it anymore, plus the new radios and drivers can have 4 channels of 5 MHz RF spectrum. That 5 MHz can deliver a solid 6.5 mbps and up to 12 mbps with compression kicking in. Lonnie On 2/4/07, wispa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 4 Feb 2007 11:59:18 -0800, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote > I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, > but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its > reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can > your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that > properly supports the ability. It must be, because running your gear, I cannot get G mode to work acceptably AT ALL. In my area, every channel has SOME noise on it. Even with signal levels in the low '60's, I could never achieve better than 350 to 400 KB / sec throughput for a DEPLOYED AP and client, and B mode could hit 1400 KB/sec using compressible data, about 650-700 wihtout compression. Narrowing channels appears to kill the G characteristic of waiting for completely clear air before it will transmit. Without cloaking, a nearly idle access point in G mode with a G client, will have varying 1 to 400 ms pings as it waits for clear air to transmit in. Switching to B mode gives you rock solid 1 to 7 ms pings on an active AP with a number of clients. > > B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then > you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. Nonsense. My highest power radios are CM9's and I have have few to no noise issues in B mode. B has limited throughput and yet it has it's uses. It is certainly NOT "holding industry back". I believe that investing in B only technology is dumb, though. I thought it was dumb when I started a little less than 3 years ago, which is why I tried not to. I've found that 11a is actually a bit more friendly, in that it's easier to target your ap's and clients, and exclude noise sources outside the pattern. If you use G mode and > X2 cloaki
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Mac, nothing I said should have been even remotely insulting. I have read you trading insults with people and my post was quite tame in comparison. Your response was actually quite insulting and shows you can dish it out. Methinks you do this to get your way. I did not say anything about X2 cloaking requiring any particular brand of software and I will not even mention what we use. There are lots of systems that now support 5 & 10 MHz RF bandwidths. If you put your head back in the sand I hope you know what is exposed. The phone company ignored technology for years too, and then new guys who embraced technology jumped in and showed them up. At one time you embraced new technology, now you just want to sit back and make money from the investment you have already made. We develop new techniques to solve old problems using technology. Nobody says you have to use it. You maybe should but hey, that is up to you. Lonnie Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: See inline please Mac Dearman -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. **This sounds like the answer I was looking for, but you failed horribly in announcing that all the CPE would have to be StarOS as well. Why don't you make something that will work with what we already have so many of? I am not now nor will I ever be an ISP that is totally dependant on one mans gear or software. All my eggs are never in one basket :-) B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. **Now you are talking outside your arena and insulting the majority on this list. You don't know what my noise floor is as I live in Louisiana and my noise floor is just that - -MINE. I created the noise and I live with I have created. That's one of the purposes for the sectors. Furthermore - "B" is not dead. I might as well say unless you live a new house and drive a new car, own a crew cab truck with a big diesel engine in it then you aren't a successful in life. Do you have a new home, car and a big truck Lonnie? You need to learn to NOT be so radical with what you say as well as take into account that not everyone owns a software company and runs 100% Mikrotik or StarOS which is what it would take to cut the spectrum up in chunks as you are doing. I can bet I would never hear Tully make the comment that "B" is dead!! That really Galls my Grapes and scorches my Tater patch! If "B" were dead - - I guess I would be buried. You know what they say - - opinions are like # holes - - some of us just don't mind exposing ourselves in public places. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point --> I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. **I know a bunch of folks on this list PERSONALLY and don't know of even 1 that is all "G" unless they have only a couple APs out. As far as the "old hands" at wireless - - we are using a menagerie of different gear as so many vendors and software writers stuff was not suitable or they had more bugs than good drivers. We still have to tolerate different screw ups from you software writers from time to time. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? **I have about 70 MikroTik (as well as Proxim, Trango, and others) APs/routers in the air today. I have "G" capable radios in every AP and is the reason for my asking my original "non insulting" question. I hate I feel like a June bug and you are the Duck! You really crack me up Lonnie - - Get off that box! It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless st
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
There is nothing wrong with an omni if the users are all around it. You get better signals with a sector but a microcell is the perfect place for an omni. The fact that your current sites can see each other is awesome and you are part way to achieving a Mesh. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mac Dearman wrote: > But George :-) answer my question: > > Are you running G mode on towers with multiple broadcasts? Like a tower with > 3 120* sectors? My Original main tower is 3 sectors of B, too many B clients to swap an AP over and find out at that busy noisy site. Would be the ultimate answer to your question though. I'm slowly moving the clients of to G to do just this. All the other locations are small pops that have either 1 or 2 G ap's and are either fed with A or in some cases G. I have some pops that are cm9 G and 200mw B as ap's and no problem. I do however have many many G omni's that can see/hear each other and work fine. I am not using any cloaking, just straight 20MHz wifi channels. I also understand the concern and opinions of using omni's ;P George -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
The days of amplifiers are over. We cover more than 70 miles along our Valley. We build microcells for small pockets of users that are too far to reach with normal antennas or have trees or hills, etc. Blasting more power is the way we used to do it, remember? Attitudes have to change and the first one that needs to change is that amps are good. They are evil and cause nothing but grief for yourself and anybody else wanting to use the spectrum. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Has anyone found an amp that'll work CORRECTLY with g AND b? marlon - Original Message - From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > Nothing scientific Mac, but I think lots of G ap's work better than lots > of B ap's. > > Seems when I've seen high powered B ap's in the mix there can be issues. > Where as when I see only low powered G things still work. > > The area I cover is fairly small, so i'm getting densly built out with > omni's and sectors all over the place. > > > > Mac Dearman wrote: >> How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement >> G, >> but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients >> running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be >> trouble in Paradise here!! >> >> Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple >> antennas on one tower?) >> >> Mac >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >> >> Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. >> G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B >> requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. >> >> Lonnie >> >> On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install >>>today are G. >>>60's is great, 70's work just fine too. >>>60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and >>>even low 80's beat B. >>> >>>B stands for Bad >>>G stands for Good >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Marlon K. Schafer wrote: >>> >>>>It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. >>>> >>>>Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas >>>>that you need to make it work right. >>>> >>>>Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, >>>>and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. >>>> >>>>laters, >>>>marlon >>>> >>>>- Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" >>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>To: "WISPA General List" >>>>Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM >>>>Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I wanted to get some feedback from the List. >>>>> >>>>>Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short >>>>>Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? >>>>>Is 18 dbi enough? >>>>> >>>>>I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long >>>>>range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be >>>>>good for? >>>>>Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? >>>>> >>>>>I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but >>>>>PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 >>>>>cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for >>>>>interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was >>>>>needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such >>>>>Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. >>>>> >>>>>Tom DeReggi >>>>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>--
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
We run as many as 4 G mode with 16 dB 60 degree sectors. The AP uses WLM54SuperG Atheros radios with X2 cloaking so this means the 4 channels are not overlapping. We are in a valley and the AP sites are typically on the sides, so that we do not require coverage on the back side. Some of my towers use only 2 radios with 16 dB 60 degree sectors pointed straight down the valley and people from the back side can still get a usable -85 dB. We use the WLM54SuperG radios (from Compex) on the AP and client and we are very happy with the performance. The Client is using a 14 dB Rootenna for the case and antenna in one. Just drop the cat5 with POE to the user provided switch and it is online. For a microcell we use 5 GHz to feed the site with one CM9 radio and we then use a 15 dB omni for 2.4 GHz and we use the other two radios for 900 MHz and another 5 GHz feed to another site. Most of my subscribers can now see at least 3 and as many as 6 of my Access Points. This gives me an incredible ability to switch them if I need. This is Mesh, plain and simple. The ability to have multiple choices is what Mesh is all about. If the backbone is Mesh then all sites will have multiple paths to the Internet and a single failure merely has everyone move to another AP and Mesh Routing takes care of the move. I can pull the power plug on an AP and within 1 minute all users are automatically moved to another AP and are back surfing. I know this goes farther than the B versus G debate that was started, but the key thing in being able to do this is the cloaking with its reduced RF spectrum use. A B mode AP cannot do cloaking, nor can your AP do it if the AP is not an Atheros with a driver that properly supports the ability. B is dead and is holding the Industry back. If you use B mode then you NEED 400 mW radios because of the noise. If you use G mode and X2 cloaking then you need less than 100 mW and you'll have WAY better performance. Just to be sure about this point --> I am speaking from EXPERIENCE. This is not some plan I someday hope to try. It is what we use and is what a lot of others use as well. OFDM was invented as an improvement over previous modulation techniques. Why do people have such a hard time accepting that it actually works better? Is it because you have an investment in B only radios and realize you have to reinvest in G radios? It is sort of like the phone companies hanging onto their copper lines. Wireless started to cream them and now you are seeing that G is creaming B, so that the old established operators are in trouble. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How are y'all running "G" in so many places? I would love to implement G, but I have so many towers sectored out and then we have so many clients running wireless routers close to the CPE that I feel like there would be trouble in Paradise here!! Are any of you running G on anything but an Omni antenna? (Multiple antennas on one tower?) Mac -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install > today are G. > 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. > 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and > even low 80's beat B. > > B stands for Bad > G stands for Good > > > > > > Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > > It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. > > > > Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas > > that you need to make it work right. > > > > Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, > > and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. > > > > laters, > > marlon > > > > - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM > > Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > > > > >> I wanted to get some feedback from the List. > >> > >> Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short > >> Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? > >> Is 18 dbi enough? > >> > >> I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long > >> range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be > >> goo
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Totally agree. A bad G link will still give as good as a GOOD B link. G will give 5 mbps even when it is close to not connecting and B requires superb signals to get 5 mbps. Lonnie On 2/4/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have quite abit of G out there. All the clients and ap's I install today are G. 60's is great, 70's work just fine too. 60's get top performance, 70' is still a great very fast connection and even low 80's beat B. B stands for Bad G stands for Good Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. > > Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas > that you need to make it work right. > > Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, > and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. > > laters, > marlon > > - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas > > >> I wanted to get some feedback from the List. >> >> Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short >> Near-LOS or Mid-range CPE links? >> Is 18 dbi enough? >> >> I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long >> range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be >> good for? >> Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? >> >> I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but >> PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 >> cards. The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for >> interference resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was >> needed it could be accommodated with higher power radios such >> Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas
Actually G mode works better than that. We have clients with -80 dB and they can pull a steady 10 mbps on a X2 cloaked channel (10 MHz of RF bandwidth). Even at -85 dB they can still pull 5 mbps and burst to 10 mbps. Of course these results are with Atheros cards. I have no idea about other brands of G mode cards. Lonnie On 2/4/07, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's not about antenna size. It's about signal levels. Most g radios need -60ish signal levels to work well. Use the antennas that you need to make it work right. Find the sensitivity levels of the product you are using, run the calcs, and compute a 10 dB or so fade margin. laters, marlon - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Typical OFDM CPE antennas >I wanted to get some feedback from the List. > > Typically, what Dbi gain antennas are you desiring for OFDM short Near-LOS > or Mid-range CPE links? > Is 18 dbi enough? > > I'm well aware that 18dbi will not be good for many applications (long > range or noisy), but what percentage of CPE installtions would it be good > for? > Could 75% of the CPE installs be acheived with 18dbi? > > I personally, would pick a 21-23db antenna as a preferred choice, but > PacWireless Rootennas are 19dbi, and often used with 13-15 dbm CM9 cards. > The beamwidth of 18dbi (< 20-30 degrees) is pretty good for interference > resilience and OFDM maximized, and if more gain was needed it could be > accommodated with higher power radios such Teletronic's >18dbm Atheros > cards or Ubiquiti's SR5 18-26db cards. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: High-tech to no-tech: San Francisco's troubled network ambitions
open up new ways > for roving government servants and businesspeople to work. > > According to James Hettrick, CIO of the Southern California city of Loma > Linda that has its own municipal fiber network, San Francisco's proposed > plan is okay as a start, but he says San Francisco officials are fooling > themselves if they think it is anything more than a temporary solution. > > "Ultimately they have to figure out how to solve this problem or they'll > be a tier one city that's abandoned by their tech community." (r) > Related stories > > What a tangled mesh we weave (31 January 2007) > http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/31/wireless_mesh_packethop/ > Muni Wi-Fi - survey may not be as impartial as it seems (10 December 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/12/10/municipal_wi-fi_survey/ > Vista - hot or not? (30 November 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/30/vista_letters/ > FTC issues competition guidelines for Muni Wi-Fi (10 October 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/10/10/ftc_issues-muni_wifi_guidelines/ > Google wins SF wireless gig (6 April 2006) > http://www.theregister.com/2006/04/06/google_sf_muni_wifi/ > Earthlink wins Philly Wi-Fi gig (4 October 2005) > http://www.theregister.com/2005/10/04/philadelphi_muni_wifi/ > > (c) Copyright 2007 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
same market as an illegal competitor, I'd for sure use that against them with respect to winning roof and tower rights, fighting their interference in court, and informing their customers of the risks. And that'd all be an entirely fair and ethical approach. Rant off. Sigh. G'night. Be safe this New Years. ...and BE LEGAL! Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 11:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Then you must not be aware that Lonnie is now also selling the complete package. The newest product is Star V3, Atheros cm9 and a gateworks customized board to Lonnies specs. It's called the WAR board, or Wireless Advanced Router. They come in 2 flavors, a 4 port 533MHz proc or a 2 port 266MHz proc, both with 2 ethernets. Can do 5, 10, 20,,40MHz channel widths. I have better than 200 maybe 250 by now WAR boards in place with Pac Wireless Rootennas both 5 gig and 2 gig. Recently I built a new pop using a water tank. My transfer rate from the tank to my house gave me just under 30megs ftp across that link using a pair of 266's. Most of the links I put in are 5 gig and I use the 2nd port for a 2 gig wifi ap for the immediate area. I can honestly say that I can not remember having to reboot any of my war boards and 20 megs is not uncommon across my wireless man. This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. ******** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Seemed kind close to my home is all. All the Best in 2007. Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, Not sure why you are fired up. Your product is software that gets loaded into hardware so I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about illegal hardware and what is untrue about what I said about illegal hardware suppliers? Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 10:02 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has > no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and > quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your > investment from an equity standpoint. > > > Patrick Leary > AVP WISP Markets > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Butch Evans > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > > >Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal > >(FCC-certified) brands? > > Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was > asked. > > -- > Butch Evans > Network Engineering and Security Consulting > 573-276-2879 > http://www.butchevans.com/ > Mikrotik Certified Consultant > (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses(190). > > > > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses(43). > > > > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. > **** > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). This footnote
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Ryan, I have no personal experience with the Tranzeo line so I cannot answer directly. Through helping people on our Support Forums I know some people have nothing but trouble while others have a really good experience with the CPQ series on our Access Points. I think it all depends on the firmware and hardware version. Sorry to not be able to be more positive for you. Lonnie On 12/28/06, D. Ryan Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone just answer the questions I had without fighting amongst yourselves? (I thought Xmas with the inlaws was bad!) Lonnie... If I were to buy a StarOS type product, would it be compatable with the CPQ series radios from Tranzeo? What sort of client load should I be able to support on a Star-OS based AP? ryan On Dec 28, 2006, at 10:01 PM, Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Patrick, > > This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have > always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several > lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we > have outlived several LARGER companies. > > Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I > cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be > seen as self serving. What is your excuse? > > > Lonnie > > > On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has >> no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and >> quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your >> investment from an equity standpoint. >> >> >> Patrick Leary >> AVP WISP Markets >> Alvarion, Inc. >> o: 650.314.2628 >> c: 760.580.0080 >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Butch Evans >> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... >> >> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal >> >(FCC-certified) brands? >> >> Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was >> asked. >> >> -- >> Butch Evans >> Network Engineering and Security Consulting >> 573-276-2879 >> http://www.butchevans.com/ >> Mikrotik Certified Consultant >> (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> >> * >> *** >> >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses(190). >> * >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * >> *** >> >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses(43). >> * >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> * >> *** >> This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by >> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & >> computer viruses. >> * >> *** >> >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients...
Patrick, This is simply the LOWEST blow I have EVER seen you throw. You have always been an Evangelist and I have seen you come and go from several lists, while me and my people have survived legal blind sides and we have outlived several LARGER companies. Yep, pretty low. Plus it did not answer the question. I feel I cannot jump in since I am too close to the product and thus might be seen as self serving. What is your excuse? Lonnie On 12/28/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I mean, besides simply being illegal, such a vendor has no quality controls, they can also just up and walk away from you and quit anytime, they have no accountability, and it throws away your investment from an equity standpoint. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butch Evans Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 9:00 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] StarOS or Microtik with TRCPQ clients... On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: >Why not stick with Tranzeo or one of the other legal >(FCC-certified) brands? Good idea, Patrick, but it doesn't answer the question that was asked. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(190). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] salary
gt; >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Just taking a quick survey... answer if you can, but be honest... ;) >>>>> >>>>> What is the salary of the CEO of your ISP? Even if you can share the >>>>> percentage of that salary compared to annual gross revenue... >>>>> >>>>> Travis >>>>> Microserv >>>>> -- >>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>> >>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>> >>>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Need opinion
My recommendation is to have a dual WAR board at the main POP. Use a 5 GHz antenna and radio to connect tot the middle repeater and have a 2.4 GHz with an omni at the main just to be able to connect any local customers. The biggest investment is the CPU board and time to install, and an extra radio and 15 dB omni is cheap. Even a couple of subscribers will make it pay. At the middle repeater I would use a dual WAR with 5 GHz radios to point to main and the remote end. If you want some local service at that repeater then use a 4 port WAR and throw a 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz card in it or both 2.4 GHz or 900 MHz. Your choice. The remote end is a copy of the main end with a dual WAR and 5 GHz input and a 2.4 GHz to an omni for local use. This arrangement will get you 20 to 30 mbps of sustained throughput as long as the middle repeater is no farther than 30 miles from either end. You'll also have a couple of revenue generating AP units at each end and potentially the middle. Lonnie On 12/12/06, Carlos A. Garcia G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have just recived an answer from chad saying that starOS its a good choice, thanks chad ill check it, for your question yes i w'd like to play, i have never deployed my routers, but i really would like to, so im like a newbie compared to the people in this list but im hungry to learn the how to, thanks to everybody, this is an amazing list. Mario Pommier escribió: > Carlos, >that's your first item, your line of thinking seems accurate: > >Cisco, Proxim, Trango, Alvarion, StarOS, Mikrotik -- what equipment > will you choose and what is the advantage/disadvantage of each. >Maybe your first perspective is: do you want to go with a > "finished, packaged" product, or do you want to be able to "play more > with the tools and toys" out there? >The type of computer person you are may be a good guide: do you > deploy your own Unix/Linux based routers or do you buy Cisco finished > products? >Hope that helps some. > > Mario > > Carlos A. Garcia G wrote: > >> Thank u very much, but the question it is, i do not know many >> equipments, i have only work with cisco aironet, the last time i do >> something similar and get the cisco 1300 series the problem it is >> that in order that this work i have to use 4 radios >> >> 1300<-->[1300 -ethernet-1300]<-->1300 >> >> and what i need it is to know for example: the proxim LMG22 work in >> 5.8 and can be used as: >> >> LMG22<-->LMG22<-->LMG22 >> >> im currently looking with cisco, proxym, trango, mikrotik but i dont >> get the answer that im looking for. >> Mike Brownson escribió: >> >>> Carlos, >>> >>> It all depends on how big a hill and what speed you need. There is >>> some PtP equipment (Motorola PtP, formerly Orthogon) that can talk >>> over the hill in one link if the hill is not too big or the distance >>> is not too long. Other option is to put another repeater in >>> between. But that means another radio site. If you want to send me >>> latitude and longitude of both sites I can see if the one radio link >>> will work. >>> >>> Mike B >>> >>> Carlos A. Garcia G wrote: >>> >>>> Hi i have a problem i need to establish a wireless link betwen my >>>> ofice and another ofice there are a hill betwen so what equipment >>>> or vendors do i have to contact: look! >>>> >>>> NOC <-->> POP <-->> OFFICE >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Multi-Mini-PCI self interference
I have a site with 3 repeater links at 5.x GHz and 1 AP in the 2.4 GHz band. Our standard AP is now 2x2.4 GHz and 2x900 MHz. We really blanket an area like that. If we have LOS we use 2.4 GHz otherwise we use 900 MHz. I can't give any real numbers as to interference but it does work. I make use of top and bottom radios and channel spacing to provide separation. Lonnie On 11/19/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Has anyonoe tested the amount of self interference created between two MiniPCI RF cards mounted in the same box in the same spectrum range? Does the connector bleed RF? My original thought for multi-Slot boards (Mikroti/WAR) was that if I wanted to put in 4 cards, I could put in a 2.4, 900, 5.3, and 5.8G all in the same box without self interference since they were in different spectrum ranges. But can two cards be put in, within the same range (Qty 2- 5.3Ghz cards for example) without interference? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR9 problems.. > Hi, > > I wouldn't recommend more than one SR9 per RB532. They draw a lot of > power, and you will probably burn up your RB after a while. > > Also, there is a frequency conversion chart in the Mikrotik forums on how > the 2.4ghz channels translate to the 900mhz channels. Mikrotik will be > fixing this in the 3.0 release. > > Travis > Microserv > > J. Vogel wrote: >> I finally got a chance to play with the SR9 cards I got in last week. >> Installed them >> in a RB532 running 2.9.30, along with one Prism nl-2511mp plus and a >> RouterBoard r52 (Atheros chipset?). Not working. >> >> First off, the SR9s are big enough that they don't fit everwhere you >> might think they >> should... such as on the top side of a RB112. Neither do they fit in one >> of the two >> slots in the expansion daughterboard for a RB532. Swapping cards around, >> I did >> get the two SR9s in with the other two cards above. One is on the >> daughterboard, >> the other is (I think) on the back side of RB532. Fired up the system, >> and it shows >> four wireless interfaces. The Prism, and the rb52 (which shows up as >> Atheros AR5413) >> both work, am able to configure them and pass traffic through them as >> desired. >> >> The other two interfaces are listed as AR5213 cards. Is that correct? >> When I >> attempt to configure those interfaces (using winbox) the only option I >> have available >> for the RF band is 2.4Ghz, along with the B,G 10mHz and 5 mHz options in >> that >> band. Channels 1 through 11 in the 2.4 range are available for me to >> select. Nothing >> about 900 mHz. >> >> What am I doing wrong? >> >> John >> > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Client loss during longer AP outagage[late nite AP service window]
What are the brands of the client units? They might very well have the same gear inside which could account for the similar behaviour. Lonnie On 11/8/06, rabbtux rabbtux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, I've seen this situation now several times, and wonder if someone on the list has an explaination for it. Last week we took down one of our APs (802.11b) for several hours to replace it with a new one. We ran into some issues and had to fall back to using the original system. We brought up the original system after being down for 3 or 4 hours. Of the 25 subs, 4 or 5 CPEs did not re-associate with the AP. All was cleared up when customers called & were instructed to recycle power to outdoor CPEs. This situation happened to 3 different types of CPEs that we have in the field for this AP. Is there something fundamental in the 802.11b specification that I am missing? Has anyone else seen this before? I'm now ready to replace the AP with the new equipment, but worry that I'll have CPE re-association issues again if off-line for too long (2-4 hours?). Thanks for your replies, Marshall -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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 Omni and gain
ain first. >> >> Having said that, a lot of people put in the high gain 900 omni >> antennas and >> don't seem to have much trouble with them. >> >> I agree with the sector idea though. >> >> The 900 that I'm using now is trango. They have almost got the full >> eirp >> built right in to the radio/antenna system as it comes from the factory. >> The down side is that it takes 6 ap's to cover 360*. That can get >> spendy. >> Especially if you pay rent per antenna. >> >> As a rule, we are sectorizing more and more sites these days. Even >> the ones >> out in the sticks. There are too many other users out there showing >> up all >> of the time. >> >> latetrs, >> marlon >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Barry at Mutual Data" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:01 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900MHz Omni and gain >> >> >> >> >>> Hello Brian, >>> >>> No more then 8db in my playbook anymore. And horz. if at all possible. >>> >>> Sectors on 900 is the best way to go too. >>> >>> I got an Antel 11db with downtilt that I would sell if you really >>> want a >>> vertical omni. Heavy duty antenna. >>> >>> Barry >>> >>> Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 8:20:28 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> BR> I looking for input on what vertical 900 omni to use. I have heard >>> BR> statements from Marlon like "I'd never use a 2.4 omni over such and >>> such >>> BR> gain.", because of the beamwidth and such. Anyway what are the >>> BR> opinions of the use of the 900 omni? >>> BR> http://www.pacwireless.com/products/omni_900mhz.shtml >>> >>> BR> Brian >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Barrymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> -- >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>> >> >> >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: >> 11/3/2006 >> >> >> >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] H.323 video conference
Mark, I cannot help you on this list. Please use our Support Forums at http://forums.star-os.com/ for StarOS related questions. Thanks, Lonnie On 10/30/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am still trying to get a Polycom video conference unit to work from my private NAT network through a StarOS router to the public Internet. I have had to unit working fine on the outside of the firewall but cannot get it to connect from the inside. I kind of feel it is an H.323 compliance issue. Are there setting I need to make in StarOS? Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573.729.9200 - Office 573.729.9203 - Fax 573.247.9980 - Mobile http://www.accubak.com/ http://www.accubak.net/ Nationwide Internet Access Accurate backups for your critical data! This electronic communication (including any attached document) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This communication is intended only for the use of indicated e-mail addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any attached document is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached document. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] "The Gremlin," redux
P, one with a 5.3GHz AP and a 5.8GHz AP) and the non-2.4 customers aren't affected? Keep in mind that, for annoying historical reasons, much of our network is still "flat," bridged addresses flying willy-nilly across four counties. If it were a network storm, I'd expect it to hit all our towers, on all channels, and not conveniently skip over the most geographically remote ones. There's also all the nasty logistical problems of my company not having twenty extra hands that we can just have sitting at all our towers for days, or weeks, at a time, waiting for a problem that shows up completely randomly, hoping I can call everyone to start unplugging stuff before the problem magically goes away, but that's another issue altogether ;) Last, remember this really is amazingly random, and usually only shows up for a minute or two at a time, brief enough that I only see it in our logs well after the fact. (Yesterday it visited us for a good twenty minutes, long enough for customers to really notice, and for me to have time to dig into it again.) I certainly don't mean to sound dismissive of any suggestions, it's just that I've tried most of the "obvious" ones before. David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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, internet home user security info
http://www.scambusters.org/ They seem to know about everything. I always direct people to it when they ask about emails that are clearly bogus. Lonnie On 10/17/06, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, I'd like to add some info to our tech support site. What I'm specifically looking for is a site that shows some examples of phishing, virus', identy theft etc. Anyone know of a site that's already done? OR do I need to make one? laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
Yes that is with WAR boards and StarV3, but the point was more the range that can be attained and the antenna used (which is why I did not even mention StarOS). Lonnie On 10/13/06, KyWiFi LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is quite remarkable Lonnie, thank you for sharing. I assume you are using StarOS on WAR boards for the 5.8GHz and 900MHz links referenced below? Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation & Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned & Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results We are using the PacWireless 11 dB yagis for our AP. We are fortunate in that we have a narrow valley so that two 11 dB yagis cover both directions very nicely. I set up and AP 42 km from my first install. It is linked at 5.8 GHz with 3 foot dishes and CM9 radios. I get -70 dB signals and it is solid. For a hoot I turned the 900 AP into a client and did a site survey and it saw and was able to link to the 900 AP 42 km away. The signal was a -76 dB and it was very usable and no packet loss. This is with near perfect LOS. The other direction had a very large group of trees to go through BUT I still saw a -84 dB signal from 20 km and it was stable and usable. Lonnie On 10/13/06, KyWiFi LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for sharing this information with the list Joe, I appreciate > it and I'm sure others do too! > > Please let us know if you decide to play with 900Mhz using an omni > instead of a sector as I would be interested in hearing the range that > is possible with an omni compared to a sector. I have my eye on the > PacWireless OD9-11 (http://tinyurl.com/vq7dj). > > TGIF. > > > Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder > KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky > "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" > http://www.KyWiFi.com > Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 > === > $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet > $14.99 Home Phone Service > $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV > - No Phone Line Required for DSL > - FREE Activation & Equipment > - Affordable Upfront Pricing > - Locally Owned & Operated > - We Also Service Most Rural Areas > === > > > - Original Message - > From: "Joe Laura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:44 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results > > > Well, I finally got time to hang the 900 A/P tonight. MT with SR9 on a 532a. > Client is a Rb112. Superpass 10dbi sector and a 10dbi panel for the client. > While its not the golden bullet sorta speak I am very impressed with it. > What better place to test than City Park. Its full of old tall oaks. From > about two miles out I was seeing -75 signal and easily squeezing 2 megs up > and down. I always see a lower upload on other gear but the 900 down and up > always seemed to be almost the same. I have had many calls from a > subdivision that was flooded from the storm and they still do not have bell > or cable in there. I tried doing two houses in that subdivision without any > luck with 2.4. Its loaded with trees. Well from my truck at these two > locations I had no problem seeing a -72 signal. As I got a little closer to > the pop maybe 1 mile I was seeing a -70 with still quite a few trees in the > way and I was seeing four megs up and down This is where it seemed to peak > out at. Like someone said its another tool in the tool box. Its just what I > needed because while 2.4 will burn through some trees the 900m shots will do > so much better. > Superior Wireless > New Orleans,La. > www.superior1.com > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/w
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
We are using the PacWireless 11 dB yagis for our AP. We are fortunate in that we have a narrow valley so that two 11 dB yagis cover both directions very nicely. I set up and AP 42 km from my first install. It is linked at 5.8 GHz with 3 foot dishes and CM9 radios. I get -70 dB signals and it is solid. For a hoot I turned the 900 AP into a client and did a site survey and it saw and was able to link to the 900 AP 42 km away. The signal was a -76 dB and it was very usable and no packet loss. This is with near perfect LOS. The other direction had a very large group of trees to go through BUT I still saw a -84 dB signal from 20 km and it was stable and usable. Lonnie On 10/13/06, KyWiFi LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thank you for sharing this information with the list Joe, I appreciate it and I'm sure others do too! Please let us know if you decide to play with 900Mhz using an omni instead of a sector as I would be interested in hearing the range that is possible with an omni compared to a sector. I have my eye on the PacWireless OD9-11 (http://tinyurl.com/vq7dj). TGIF. Shannon D. Denniston, Co-Founder KyWiFi, LLC - Mt. Sterling, Kentucky "Your Hometown Broadband Provider" http://www.KyWiFi.com Call Us Today: 859.274.4033 === $29.99 DSL High Speed Internet $14.99 Home Phone Service $19.99 All Digital Satellite TV - No Phone Line Required for DSL - FREE Activation & Equipment - Affordable Upfront Pricing - Locally Owned & Operated - We Also Service Most Rural Areas === - Original Message - From: "Joe Laura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results Well, I finally got time to hang the 900 A/P tonight. MT with SR9 on a 532a. Client is a Rb112. Superpass 10dbi sector and a 10dbi panel for the client. While its not the golden bullet sorta speak I am very impressed with it. What better place to test than City Park. Its full of old tall oaks. From about two miles out I was seeing -75 signal and easily squeezing 2 megs up and down. I always see a lower upload on other gear but the 900 down and up always seemed to be almost the same. I have had many calls from a subdivision that was flooded from the storm and they still do not have bell or cable in there. I tried doing two houses in that subdivision without any luck with 2.4. Its loaded with trees. Well from my truck at these two locations I had no problem seeing a -72 signal. As I got a little closer to the pop maybe 1 mile I was seeing a -70 with still quite a few trees in the way and I was seeing four megs up and down This is where it seemed to peak out at. Like someone said its another tool in the tool box. Its just what I needed because while 2.4 will burn through some trees the 900m shots will do so much better. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
BLUSH. Thanks Patrick. Lifestyle has not elevated at all. That is why I moved to the sticks so I could avoid the pressures of keeping up with the other Yups. We live very simply. I bought a new Corolla last year. My '89 Landcruiser has a few more years left in her. One thing for sure is that we are known in the Valley. It makes it more difficult to get your mail (at the Post Office) and checkouts at the grocery store take longer. It is quite a change when the bank teller pumps you for a few answers while you are doing the banking. We are in the final stages of building 5 new towers. When they come on line we'll have an area that extends 150 km along the Valley floor and have almost perfect coverage to the people living along the Valley. This is how we perfect our code and I'm the guy they all call and talk to when it is not done right. We like reliable first, performance second and price third. It is fun and I was finally able to justify and buy a Bobcat. I have wanted one of those since forever. We are doing quite OK and having the most fun we have all ever had. It is fun to match the big boys almost feature for feature, especially when we are a 6 person company doing R&D, building and shipping product and running the local WISP. Rarely are we bored. I can also say that Valemount has the highest population density of Linux kernel and driver hackers, with three of us in a town of 1,100. Lonnie On 9/27/06, Patrick Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, I think you've done a great job with StarOS. You found a need and went after it with true entrepreneurial zeal. And you've done it all from that remote slice of mountain paradise. I bet your town is proud of you too, since you are a great local success story and a perfect example of the possibilities for smart people in small towns in a global marketplace. I suspect your lifestyle has been majorly elevated since you launched it and that's all well-earned! I remember you pre-StarOS! You got nothing but my respect. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 8:40 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion I agree that Tom's findings are accurate and mirror the real world, even to the conclusion --> they use our gear at the end of the exercise. It just means we'll have to work on our installation and troubleshooting tools. Lonnie On 9/27/06, Brad Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Tom, Your findings are in line with what many Alvarion operators also > enjoy. Ease of installs and low operational costs. Brad > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:28 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion > > The link: 4.5 miles, 1 Big fat building in the way, barely unable to clear > the roof. Noise floor high. > Limits: Noise Floor to high for PtMP Trango, based on obstruction. > Stats: rssi -75 & -78, noise -79 or worse on Horiz, Vert worse, RSSI almost > 15db below calculations due to NLOS ) > Solution: Install PTP to get more gain on AP side, Add OFDM to help with > obstruction. > > Trango 5830 was invaluable to determine what was going on. It's built-in > survey command was able to determine the noise floor on all channels > accurately, and home in on the fact that the link was marginal because of > gear that used a 20Mhz channel half way between Trango's channels. > > StarOS w/ 28 dbi PAcwireless on both sides- Got -55 & -60 rssi. Good link, > but it was not perfect, with 1 out of 20 large ping packets with high > latency. It would regularly negotiate down to 36mbps or 18 mbps on one side. > > StarOS w/ 28db on one side, and 23dbi on other side- Got -60 & -65 rssi. > Excellent / Perfect link. Stayed constant at 54 mbps, with a very rare > negotiation down to 48mbps or 36mbps. We believe this is becaue one of two > reasons, reflections off the building right back at us, or the wide > beamwidth of lower gain antenna to help use multi-path to optimize OFDM. We > often felt 19-23 dbi antenna ideal for OFDM. This put us above the noise of > > most of the channels, and narrowed our beam compared to PtMP to reduce > noise. OFDM clearly helped to not lose rssi due to the building > obstruction, and gain was not received solely from higher gain of PTP > antennas. > > The problem with STAROS-V3... We ran survey, and picked up ZERO interference > > or devices, but yet we know that there is lots of interfering devices out > there.
Re: [WISPA] Real World comparison of Trango-staros-Alvarion
ned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses(42). > > > > > > > > > > > > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & > computer viruses. > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(192). ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(43). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 madwifi and WRAP power issues?
Depending on the driver version you'll see different numbers. The SR9 has a gain of about 12 dB that is not accounted for in the RF chain, so a number of 16 is actually 28 dB. The newer drivers do not allow you to exceed the manufacturer programmed maximum values, since doing so can overdrive the card and damage it. Lonnie On 9/19/06, rabbtux rabbtux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, I'm trying to evaluate my new SR9s. I have 2 WRAP boards and 11db antennas. I seem to recall at one point that I saw the TX power reported by iwconfig as 26db (700mw). Now a couple weeks later when I resume field tests, I noticed it was 16db. I can change the power down and iwconfig reports it, yet I can't change it above the 16 now reported? I swapped pigtails, and even SR9s to look at this. Can anyone suggest some way to verify power output short of a spectrum analyzer?? Thank you kindly, marshall Rabbit Meadows Technology -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- 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 Company President Indicted on Federal Fraud Charges
I have heard about this on a few lists. Nothing I read indicates that he refused to repay the loans, so how can there be fraud? Doesn't it just burn everybody that someone will commit fraud (supposedly) and then have the audacity to use those funds for payroll? Lonnie On 9/18/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: defrauding the U.S. Department of Agriculture of more than $1.6 million in connection with a $4.2 million loan related to the expansion of wireless broadband service to rural Minnesota. http://communitydispatch.com/artman/publish/article_6420.shtml -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routing woes.....
The bridge feeding the BRAPx units can be a problem unless it is a true bridge, meaning it cannot be a pseudo bridge doing proxy arp or mac cloning. What type of unit is that bridge? Lonnie On 9/17/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The edge router is in my office connected to WAN and 172.22.1.0/24 There is a radio on the roof (bridge) feeding BR AP1 wireless (1.3) The second wpci is an AP (1.12) Ethernet connects BRAP1, BRAP2 and BRAP3 on 172.22.255.0/29 BRAP2 is an AP (12.1) BRAP3 is an AP (13.1) and a BH to a new tower. The back haul link is 172.22.20.0/24 Everything is statically routed except for the bridge radio feeding the tower. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573.729.9200 - Office 573.729.9203 - Fax 573.247.9980 - Mobile http://www.accubak.com/ http://www.accubak.net/ Nationwide Internet Access Accurate backups for your critical data! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routing woes. What is the Ethernet assignment on the edge router? What is the connection to the BR AP units? Is it Ethernet or wireless? I am thinking it is Ethernet since the BR AP units seem to have their radios in AP mode, but the BH designation on the one unit has me not so sure of it. My first comment is actually a question. Why use bridging at all? You have subnets assigned to all devices so routing would be a snap to implement and you are more than half way there. Bridging uses the IP strictly for configuration. It will figure out the connections based on the ARP table, so in my mind you never really have routes in a bridge design. The two conflict. For routing design just make sure to use subnets that are common for each connected device. That means that if you connect the edge unit to the other units by Ethernet, they all share a unique subnet and when you can ping the connected units you have the basis for a routed backbone. Once that is done and all backbone units are pingable on Ethernet I would simply enable RIP and remove the bridge tags and you would be solid for the rest of the LAN. Just keep assigning new, unique subnets to all new devices and let RIP take care of it. All you will need is a default route on each new device that points to the machine and IP it connects with. By moving to routed and RIP you will find your current system is simpler and easier and I'll bet it will have higher performance and it will offer you more control and troubleshooting ability. Lonnie On 9/17/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am trying to add a route to my existing network and I just can't get it to > work... > > The network I can't get to work is to network 172.22.20.0/24, all others > work fine. > > > > Edge router StarOS > > > > 0.0.0.0/0 216.229.xxx.xxxether1 >Wan > > 172.22.255.0/29 172.22.1.3 ether2 >Route to BR LAN > > 172.22.11.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to BR AP1 > > 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to BR AP2 > > 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to BR AP3 > > 172.22.22.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 > Route to Atheros test > > 172.22.23.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 > Route to Prism test > > 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 > Route to Lenox BH ( does not work ) > > > > BR AP1 - StarOS, 2 wireless cards > > Wpci1 172.22.11.1AP > > Wpci2 172.22.1.3 BH > > Ether1 172.22.255.1 > > > > 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.1.1 wpci2 > > 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.255.2 ether1 > Route to AP2 > > 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 > Route to AP3 > > 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 > Route to BH Lenox > > > > BR AP2 - Mikrotik, 1 wireless card > > Wpci1 172.22.12.1 AP > > Ether1 172.22.355.2 > > > > 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.255.1 ether1 > > > > BR AP3 - StarOS, 2 wireless cards > > Wpci1 172.22.13.1 > > Wpci2 172.22.20.1 > > Ether1 172.22.255.3 > > > > 0.0.0.0/24 172.22.255.1 ether1 > > > > > > Trace from machine on 172.22.1.0/24 > > C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 172.22.20.1 > > > > Tracing route to 172.22.20.1 over a maximum of 30 hops > >
Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
Vertical and horizontal were tried. The results are the same.LonnieOn 9/17/06, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838 I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear. Needless to say this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place in our tool chest. Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through some trees. This is truly NON LOS. Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use? Thanks leon -- Leon Zetekoff Proprietor Work: 484-335-9920 Mobile: 610-223-8642 Fax: 484-335-9921 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff BackWoods Wireless 505 B Main Street Blandon, PA 19510 "Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas" See who we know in common Want a signature like this? --WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie NunweilerValemount Networks Corporationhttp://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Initial SR9 test results
http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838 I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear. Needless to say this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place in our tool chest. Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through some trees. This is truly NON LOS. -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routing woes.....
What is the Ethernet assignment on the edge router? What is the connection to the BR AP units? Is it Ethernet or wireless? I am thinking it is Ethernet since the BR AP units seem to have their radios in AP mode, but the BH designation on the one unit has me not so sure of it. My first comment is actually a question. Why use bridging at all? You have subnets assigned to all devices so routing would be a snap to implement and you are more than half way there. Bridging uses the IP strictly for configuration. It will figure out the connections based on the ARP table, so in my mind you never really have routes in a bridge design. The two conflict. For routing design just make sure to use subnets that are common for each connected device. That means that if you connect the edge unit to the other units by Ethernet, they all share a unique subnet and when you can ping the connected units you have the basis for a routed backbone. Once that is done and all backbone units are pingable on Ethernet I would simply enable RIP and remove the bridge tags and you would be solid for the rest of the LAN. Just keep assigning new, unique subnets to all new devices and let RIP take care of it. All you will need is a default route on each new device that points to the machine and IP it connects with. By moving to routed and RIP you will find your current system is simpler and easier and I'll bet it will have higher performance and it will offer you more control and troubleshooting ability. Lonnie On 9/17/06, Mark McElvy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am trying to add a route to my existing network and I just can't get it to work… The network I can't get to work is to network 172.22.20.0/24, all others work fine. Edge router StarOS 0.0.0.0/0 216.229.xxx.xxxether1 Wan 172.22.255.0/29 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR LAN 172.22.11.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR AP1 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR AP2 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to BR AP3 172.22.22.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 Route to Atheros test 172.22.23.0/24 172.22.1.9 ether2 Route to Prism test 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.1.3 ether2 Route to Lenox BH ( does not work ) BR AP1 – StarOS, 2 wireless cards Wpci1 172.22.11.1AP Wpci2 172.22.1.3 BH Ether1 172.22.255.1 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.1.1 wpci2 172.22.12.0/24 172.22.255.2 ether1 Route to AP2 172.22.13.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 Route to AP3 172.22.20.0/24 172.22.255.3 ether1 Route to BH Lenox BR AP2 – Mikrotik, 1 wireless card Wpci1 172.22.12.1 AP Ether1 172.22.355.2 0.0.0.0/0 172.22.255.1 ether1 BR AP3 – StarOS, 2 wireless cards Wpci1 172.22.13.1 Wpci2 172.22.20.1 Ether1 172.22.255.3 0.0.0.0/24 172.22.255.1 ether1 Trace from machine on 172.22.1.0/24 C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>tracert 172.22.20.1 Tracing route to 172.22.20.1 over a maximum of 30 hops 1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 172.22.1.1 2 1 ms 1 ms<1 ms 172.22.1.3 3 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 172.22.1.3 4 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 172.22.1.1 5 2 ms 2 ms 2 ms ^C Even though I have a route pointing it to 1.3, it starts with 1.1 unlike all the routes in the list. Mark This electronic communication (including any attached document) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This communication is intended only for the use of indicated e-mail addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any attached document is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached document. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...
We set our software to use antenna A which is the corner antenna connector on the CM9 and the WLM54G. The WLM54G calls that antenna the secondary, so we are accepting it as a mis-marked part, or marked for another application. We see no difference between A and B in terms of performance. Lonnie On 9/15/06, chris cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can anyone else confirm/deny this? Thanks Chris I thought the issue was that the cards are mis marked. Marked back wards. The outside corner is actually antenna port "A" . Card says B George Anthony Will wrote: > It looks like he is talking about the antenna ports on the mPCI card. > There are generally two u.fl or some combo u.fl and sma, etc. He is > stating that if you utilize the wrong port on the card then what is > configured you will loss 20+db of signal. It also looks like the > WLM54AG's have an issue where they loss some signal if you utilize the > secondary port / b port on the card. FYI I have not used the WLM54AG > card as of yet. Sticking with my old reliable cm9's and SR5's > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation...
Paul, What do you mean when you say the CM9 listens on the whole 20 MHz when set to 5 MHz mode? Lonnie On 9/13/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would say that it depends on the application. The CM9 and the R52 use different generation of Atheros chipset. The main difference between the 2 chipsets is the newer chipset requires slightly less power to run and if you are running the card in 10MHz or 5MHz modes it will only listern to that 10MHz or 5MHz whilst the older CM9 chipset will still listen to the whole 20MHz. If you are looking to replace a 200mw 2.4 card then both the CM9 and the R52 may leave some of your clients with a weak signal so the Atheros based 200mw cards would be the way to go. If you aren't looking to use 10MHz or 5mhz then the CM9 is still a great choice however there are a couple of other next generation Atheros based cards out there. Cheers, P. Skyline Networks & Consultancy Ltd http://www.skyline-networks.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark McElvy Sent: 13 September 2006 16:38 To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] MiniPCI wireless card recommendation... I am looking to replace my current APs and have decided to move to Mikrotik but am not sure of the best choice for a radio. The ones I am contemplating are the CM-9, R52, or the WLM54G. I currently use CM-9's in 5.8 for my backhauls and so far have been satisfied. My current AP radios are 200mW Prism radios (2.4), so I was considering the WLM54G as a replacement. The concern with them is a lot of resellers are out of stock, plus I have heard a few people say they have had performance issues with them. Lastly I have seen the R52, seems similar to the CM-9. The only issue I have with it so far is there is no US distributor I have found. Might not be a great issue except for shipping and RMA's. Mark McElvy AccuBak Data Systems, Inc. 573.729.9200 - Office 573.729.9203 - Fax 573.247.9980 - Mobile http://www.accubak.com/ http://www.accubak.net/ Nationwide Internet Access Accurate backups for your critical data! This electronic communication (including any attached document) may contain privileged and/or confidential information. This communication is intended only for the use of indicated e-mail addressees. If you are not an intended recipient of this communication, please be advised that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this communication or any attached document is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this communication and any attached document. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 12/09/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.3/446 - Release Date: 12/09/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
By power supply I am talking about the on board power supply. My first pick for external supply is solar charger to 24V batteries. Lonnie On 9/12/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So what Power Supply has won your first pick approval? (between 21-28V) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance > No, not 48V yet. We are very happy with the current stuff, especially > since they handle 2 SR9 and 2 WLM54 cards. Any power supply gets a > lot of testing by me before I commit to it. I only change when there > is a good reason and simply because there is a new power supply is not > a good reason. > > Lonnie > > On 9/5/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: >> We run from >> > 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of >> > charge and battery. >> > Lonnie >> >> Are the 533 boards rated for 48 volts yet? >> >> George Rogato >> >> Welcome to WISPA >> >> www.wispa.org >> >> 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/ >> > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Anyone wwant to SUBSIDIZE AT&T with FREE bandwidth?
I would deal with it by a data transfer cap. Charge more when they exceed a "normal" amount. I need to be able to oversell my bandwidth and if everyone used their speed to its max, I would not be able supply a good service for the price I charge. The good thing is that if everyone watches TV using the Internet then soon you'll have the TV stations providing Internet with their unused bandwidth. Lonnie On 9/12/06, Frank Muto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the point is that AT&T is pushing to charge extra for additional bandwidth loads, e.g., Amazon, Google, Yahoo! etc, and this is where all the Net Neutrality crap began from. Do you recall AT&T Whitacre's "nobody gets a free ride" statement? http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=100380 Whitacre complained that "some people" want AT&T to act as a "dumb pipe that just keeps getting bigger and bigger." "This thing is growing at a rate that nobody would imagine," Whitacre said of the market demand for bandwidth. He said AT&T networks are now handling 5.6 Petabytes of data every day. "There's more and more content, and you need more and more bandwidth, and somebody's got to build it." "If you build it, you have to make a return on that," he continued. "Nobody gets a free ride, that's all." So the point is, if one of your customers subscribes, can your network handle it? Or will you charge them extra? Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > George Rogato wrote: > >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-09-12T052710Z_01_N11192322_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-TELECOMS-ATT-TV-DC.XML&from=business > > For those who can't psychically divine article content from URLs, the > article is about a service through which a few cable TV stations, > including Fox News (We report, we decide) and The Weather Channel, will > be available for $20 a month. Apparently AT&T is involved somehow, but > the article is a bit unclear as to who's doing what. > > I don't really see how this is, per se, subsidizing AT&T. In this > instance, they're just offering a service that folks can choose to > subscribe to, or not, and that's pretty much it. They (presumably) offer > it on identical terms to both their DSL subscribers, and those who > subscribe to other ILECs' DSL packages, and cable, and WISP, and so on. > > If NBC Universal offered a service where you could have episodes of > "Project Runway" and "Battlestar Galactica" streamed to your PC, would > we suddenly say we were subsidizing them? (Hey, if it keeps those shows > on the air a few more years, subsidize away ;) > > David Smith > MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial V3 results
Small packets were not tested. Lonnie On 9/8/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nice. What about with small packets? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: 08 September 2006 17:08 To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Initial V3 results Recently we released the new V3 code for X86 PC Architecture. I thought it was worth sharing the speed results for our new Atheros driver. 96 mbps FDX on a single card with iperf -d. Pretty COOL, Eh? http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5764 -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 07/09/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 07/09/2006 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Initial V3 results
We see about 10,500 KBytes/sec hdx with a 533 MHz WAR board and about 9,000 KBytes/sec with the 266 MHz WAR board. This is Turbo and clean channels, so it will be difficult to do this is in the real world, but it does show the capability. Lonnie On 9/8/06, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, So what kind of speeds can be had with the WAR 533mhz boards and this new V3 software with CM9 cards? Travis Microserv Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > Recently we released the new V3 code for X86 PC Architecture. I > thought it was worth sharing the speed results for our new Atheros > driver. 96 mbps FDX on a single card with iperf -d. Pretty COOL, Eh? > > http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5764 > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Initial V3 results
Recently we released the new V3 code for X86 PC Architecture. I thought it was worth sharing the speed results for our new Atheros driver. 96 mbps FDX on a single card with iperf -d. Pretty COOL, Eh? http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5764 -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
As I said we are using 9 dB, 11 dB and 13 dB yagis. We are in test mode so we are trying all of them for all locations so that we can find the best combination for the task. I am not at the point yet where I can give advice for which type to use for a certain task. There are still combinations to try as part of our evaluation. Lonnie On 9/5/06, cw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the info, Lonnie. The coathangers came after we couldn't make PacWireless sector panels, omnis or yagis work. Four radios on one WAR4 surprises me. Thought that was too much power consumption. You're using yagis for the base station broadcast? Which one/s? Can anyone point me at documentation for yagi propagation? I'll be real interested to see if you get any penetration at a mile or more. - cw Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > We have not finished testing yet so we are keeping a bit quiet. I do > not wish to promote this until I know for sure it is reliable. I can > say that initial testing shows much better results than cw is seeing. > Of course we do not use omnis and coat hangers but rather PacWireless > 9 dB, 11 dB and 13 dB yagis. > > Our initial test configuration is a 4 port WAR board with 2 SR9 radios > in the bottom slots and 2 WLM-54G radios in top slots. We run from > 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of > charge and battery. With our tower locations I can hit the both > directions up and down our Valley on both 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz. Wer > figure almost everybody should be able to connect with one or both. > The preference will be for 2.4 GHz and use 900 MHz for tough jobs. > > I'll have more information later this week as we begin to connect a > few customers and let them beat on it. > >> On 8/31/06 4:05 PM, "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is anyone getting satisfactory performance with SR9s on WAR boards? >> If so, what antennas are you using for base station and subscriber end? >> > >> > At an 1/8 of a mile through foliage and structures, a neg ninety two >> is rock solid moving 1500k/sec with a couple of coat hangers for antennas. >> At 1/4 of a mile with less of everything in the way, a neg eighty-five barely >> > associates and drops packets with most antenna combinations we've >> tried. >> > >> > A Pac Wireless 8dBi omni on the base station was the worst. Small Pac >> > Wireless sector panel to sector panel was the best performance. Yagi >> to omni was worse than disappointing. I'd appreciate any antenna suggestions. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
No, not 48V yet. We are very happy with the current stuff, especially since they handle 2 SR9 and 2 WLM54 cards. Any power supply gets a lot of testing by me before I commit to it. I only change when there is a good reason and simply because there is a new power supply is not a good reason. Lonnie On 9/5/06, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: We run from > 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of > charge and battery. > Lonnie Are the 533 boards rated for 48 volts yet? George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org 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/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SR9 Performance
We have not finished testing yet so we are keeping a bit quiet. I do not wish to promote this until I know for sure it is reliable. I can say that initial testing shows much better results than cw is seeing. Of course we do not use omnis and coat hangers but rather PacWireless 9 dB, 11 dB and 13 dB yagis. Our initial test configuration is a 4 port WAR board with 2 SR9 radios in the bottom slots and 2 WLM-54G radios in top slots. We run from 24V solar, so the voltage goes from 21V to 28V depending on state of charge and battery. With our tower locations I can hit the both directions up and down our Valley on both 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz. Wer figure almost everybody should be able to connect with one or both. The preference will be for 2.4 GHz and use 900 MHz for tough jobs. I'll have more information later this week as we begin to connect a few customers and let them beat on it. Lonnie On 9/5/06, Cliff Leboeuf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CW, Did anyone offer their experiences on the SR9's as you asked below? Maybe I missed them. :( - Cliff On 8/31/06 4:05 PM, "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is anyone getting satisfactory performance with SR9s on WAR boards? If so, > what antennas are you using for base station and subscriber end? > > At an 1/8 of a mile through foliage and structures, a neg ninety two is rock > solid moving 1500k/sec with a couple of coat hangers for antennas. At 1/4 of > a mile with less of everything in the way, a neg eighty-five barely > associates and drops packets with most antenna combinations we've tried. > > A Pac Wireless 8dBi omni on the base station was the worst. Small Pac > Wireless sector panel to sector panel was the best performance. Yagi to omni > was worse than disappointing. I'd appreciate any antenna suggestions. > > Thanks, > > cw > > TerraNovaNet > http://www.TerraNova.Net > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 305-453-4011 > Think globally. Act locally. Conserve resources. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routing ProtocolsL Was: Managing CPE in routed network
t; > > > > > I understand this question as only another etherant/Tranzeo CPE user > > would > > :) Once you enter a routed environment on the backhaul or otherwise > > - your scan utility will not scan but to the first router where it > > will loose its ability to go any farther as the scan tool uses > > broadcast packets to seek its objects and the router kills broadcast packets. > > You will have to log every IP on your network and access the > > antennas via HTTP. (web interface) The scan tool will still be > > functional at each individual tower and will capture the antennas on > > the wireless AP you are > attached to at the moment. > > If you maintain a bridged network w/VLANS then the scan tool and > > everything else will work as it does now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, I would ideally like to have a public IP assigned to each CPE. > > The double NAT'ing I've got going right now has been causing a few > > issues, plus, I'm getting more business customers that want VPN and > > Remote Access to their network. > > > > > > > > I would NOT use public IPs for CPE, but I try to use public IPs for > > my infrastructure. Its one of those deals where we all have our own > > beliefs, If you use private IPs then you would need to do a VPN or > > RDP (remote desk top) back into your network to see what's going on. > > The biggest advantage to privates on infrastructure is NO HACKING > > from China...etc. Give only public IPs to those who have a need and > > willing to pay a little extra for the ability. VPNs work even though > > they are behind NAT. I would also encourage you to keep your > > bandwidth shaping at the head end of your network for convenience > > and easy back up. They can only send data as fast as you allow them > > irregardless of where you do traffic shaping. The PC will slow down > > the data it is sending thru your network to match what you set there > > speed to be and it does not create a traffic jam on your network - - as some would make you believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > I realize this will take subnetting to make it happen. I've got a > > /24 right now and can easily bump to more when needed. > > > > > > > > I have a huge network right now and only have 2 /24's and 2 /27's, > > but I don't give public IP's to anyone who don't pay for them so 90% > > of my clients have a private IP. If more public IP's are easy to get > > - get them! Once again the greatest advantage of private IPs is the > > lack of the rest of the world to hack on our clients. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How are the rest of you handling your setups like this? > > > > > > > > Half of my network is static routed and half is completely bridged. > > Which one is faster? The bridged! Which one is easier to maintain? > > The > bridged! > > Which one is easier to add clients to? The bridged! Tell me - is the > > internet bridged or routed? It is a combination of both! Routers are > > only used where routers are needed and if you counted the routers > > -vs- switches on the fiber backbone of the internet which do you > > think have the greatest population? I see it the same way on my > > network - - I will route where I need a router and use a good switch > > and a VLAN everywhere > else. > > > > > > > > Let the games begin :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Mac Dearman > > > > Maximum Access, LLC. > > > > Rayville, La. > > > > www.inetsouth.com > > > > www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales) > > > > www.radioresponse.org (Katrina Relief) > > > > 318.728.8600 > > > > 318.728.9600 > > > > 318.303.4181 > > > > > > > > Jason Hensley, MCP+I > > President > > > > Mozarks Technologies > > 909 Preacher Roe Blvd > > West Plains, MO 65775 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.mozarks.com > > > > 417.256.7946 > > 417.257.2415 (fax) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
Are you actually carrying your traffic, with your own approved public IP assignment to several carriers and they accept and route that traffic to and from the Internet? Any time I requested that it was a very expensive proposition to have and they also only did large blocks of publics. I guess times have changed. We have our network carrying our traffic to several feed points and we do nat at that time. Using policy routing and mesh we deliver to any number of available ADSL lines and T1 connections. Lonnie On 8/24/06, Mark Koskenmaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In my case, all "servers" are in boxes in the air, on the roof, or otherwise. BGP needs to be in the regular AP version. - Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network > We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was > for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a > larger server. > > Lonnie > > On 8/23/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > > > > > We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the > > > best. > > > > Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you > > remove BGP support from V3? > > > > David Smith > > MVN.net > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
We are building an AP unit for the middle and we figured that BGP was for the edge with several outlets where you would typically have a larger server. Lonnie On 8/23/06, David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: > We support RIP, OSPF and OLSR Mesh, with mesh being the one we like the > best. Verging horribly off-topic for this, but out of curiosity, why did you remove BGP support from V3? David Smith MVN.net -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
a router and use a good switch and a VLAN everywhere else. > > > > Let the games begin :-) > > > > > > Mac Dearman > > Maximum Access, LLC. > > Rayville, La. > > www.inetsouth.com > > www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales) > > www.radioresponse.org (Katrina Relief) > > 318.728.8600 > > 318.728.9600 > > 318.303.4181 > > > > Jason Hensley, MCP+I > President > > Mozarks Technologies > 909 Preacher Roe Blvd > West Plains, MO 65775 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.mozarks.com > > 417.256.7946 > 417.257.2415 (fax) > > > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Managing CPE in routed network
sk top) back into your network to see what's going on. The biggest advantage to privates on infrastructure is NO HACKING from China...etc. Give only public IPs to those who have a need and willing to pay a little extra for the ability. VPNs work even though they are behind NAT. I would also encourage you to keep your bandwidth shaping at the head end of your network for convenience and easy back up. They can only send data as fast as you allow them irregardless of where you do traffic shaping. The PC will slow down the data it is sending thru your network to match what you set there speed to be and it does not create a traffic jam on your network - - as some would make you believe. I realize this will take subnetting to make it happen. I've got a /24 right now and can easily bump to more when needed. I have a huge network right now and only have 2 /24's and 2 /27's, but I don't give public IP's to anyone who don't pay for them so 90% of my clients have a private IP. If more public IP's are easy to get – get them! Once again the greatest advantage of private IPs is the lack of the rest of the world to hack on our clients. How are the rest of you handling your setups like this? Half of my network is static routed and half is completely bridged. Which one is faster? The bridged! Which one is easier to maintain? The bridged! Which one is easier to add clients to? The bridged! Tell me – is the internet bridged or routed? It is a combination of both! Routers are only used where routers are needed and if you counted the routers –vs- switches on the fiber backbone of the internet which do you think have the greatest population? I see it the same way on my network - - I will route where I need a router and use a good switch and a VLAN everywhere else. Let the games begin :-) Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. Rayville, La. www.inetsouth.com www.mac-tel.us (VoIP Sales) www.radioresponse.org (Katrina Relief) 318.728.8600 318.728.9600 318.303.4181 Jason Hensley, MCP+I President Mozarks Technologies 909 Preacher Roe Blvd West Plains, MO 65775 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mozarks.com 417.256.7946 417.257.2415 (fax) -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
I'm not sure I understand the question. The Atheros card already does packet aggregation and compression. We have tested with and without the features and it does make a difference, with the better numbers once the features are enabled. We would not be planning on adding this for Ethernet. Lonnie On 8/17/06, Paul Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So with this MTU increase is there any chance of packet aggregation so we can make use of it? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: 17 August 2006 07:24 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 Tom, The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high values if your cards support jumbo frames. Our WAR board, with its very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU. Most other cards have limits in the 2K to 4K range. We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the updated x86 WRAP version. They have the same features as the WAR version. I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode that is no longer a 24 hour trial. It saves settings and everything works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add value. You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and rip) for free. We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, bandwidth control and our firewall scripting. We are pretty sure that more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet with approval. Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding. We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB. It took a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being patient. Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new release can do. Lonnie On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a > public announcement. > If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote > the feature. > Thanks. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > > > > It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people > > can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some > > vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each > > one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. > > > > Lonnie > > > > On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Lonnie, > >> > >> I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. > >> > >> >V3 has support for a fully transparent > >> > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP > >> > system. > >> > >> That is good news! > >> > >> > License Fee after 1 year. > >> > >> The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. > >> > >> > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every > >> > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. > >> > >> Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused > >> between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the > >> Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition > >> of > >> VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU > >> above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU > >> allowed > >> or possibly for passing MPLS). > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > > -- > > Lonnie Nunweiler > > Valemount Networks Corporation > > http://www.star-os.com/ > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lis
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
Tom, The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high values if your cards support jumbo frames. Our WAR board, with its very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU. Most other cards have limits in the 2K to 4K range. We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the updated x86 WRAP version. They have the same features as the WAR version. I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode that is no longer a 24 hour trial. It saves settings and everything works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add value. You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and rip) for free. We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, bandwidth control and our firewall scripting. We are pretty sure that more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet with approval. Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding. We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB. It took a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being patient. Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new release can do. Lonnie On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a public announcement. If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote the feature. Thanks. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people > can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some > vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each > one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. > > Lonnie > > On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Lonnie, >> >> I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. >> >> >V3 has support for a fully transparent >> > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP >> > system. >> >> That is good news! >> >> > License Fee after 1 year. >> >> The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. >> >> > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every >> > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. >> >> Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused >> between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the >> Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition >> of >> VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU >> above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU >> allowed >> or possibly for passing MPLS). >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
It's work in progress. I have found can't estimate software development timelines very well and people get upset when I am wrong, so I quit making predictions a long time ago. What I can say is we are actively working on it and it will happen as soon as we can. Also I can say to take the past as a predictor that it will happen. Lonnie On 8/14/06, Gino A. Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So.. Lonnie, got a timeframe for this ? thanks Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 8:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. Lonnie On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Lonnie, > > I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. > > >V3 has support for a fully transparent > > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system. > > That is good news! > > > License Fee after 1 year. > > The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. > > > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every > > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. > > Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused > between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the > Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition of > VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU > above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU allowed > or possibly for passing MPLS). > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
It will just be easier to support an insane MTU size so that people can go and do whatever they want. I can imagine people doing some vlan in vlan and then running the whole works over a tunnel, and each one adds tags and headers to the actual 1500 byte payload. Lonnie On 8/14/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, I just wrote to you off list, before seeing your onlist response. >V3 has support for a fully transparent > client bridge when it talks to an appropriately configured V3 AP system. That is good news! > License Fee after 1 year. The policy you explained, is fair and reasonable. > We are currently working on a custom MTU size interface for every > device to be able to handle whatever you want for MTU size. Great. To be more clear... Its easy for people (like me) to get confused between IP versus Ethernet headers. In our VLAN applications, its the Ethernet packet that needs to be supported above 1500bytes (for addition of VLAN to Ethernet header), we'd rarely ever need to increase IP packet MTU above 1500 MTU. (although I see applications for IPSEC if larger MTU allowed or possibly for passing MPLS). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?t=9130 Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Mac Dearman wrote: Where did you get that info from Travis? Links, source...etc? Mac Dearman *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Travis Johnson *Sent:* Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:58 PM *To:* WISPA General List *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 532s Maybe they pulled them off production due to the NOISE they are blowing all over the 50-450Mhz spectrum. :( Travis Microserv Kelly Shaw wrote: Anyone know of a source with RouterBoard 532s in stock? I normally can get them from WispRouter but they won't respond to my phone calls about them... Kelly Shaw Pure Internet www.pure.net <http://www.pure.net> __ NOD32 1.1657 (20060713) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com !DSPAM:16,44b6c32336811364511223! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
ey pulled them off production due to the NOISE they are blowing all over the 50-450Mhz spectrum. :( Travis Microserv Kelly Shaw wrote: Anyone know of a source with RouterBoard 532s in stock? I normally can get them from WispRouter but they won't respond to my phone calls about them... Kelly Shaw Pure Internet www.pure.net <http://www.pure.net> __ NOD32 1.1657 (20060713) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com !DSPAM:16,44b6c32336811364511223! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 900's and SR9's
Whoa, bad assumption Rick. We would never be waiting for anything from Tranzeo. I was saying we are awaiting our first batch of SR9 for evaluation and our own network, but that many of our customers have already tested SR9's with our software, and they report excellent results with both the WAR board and the new V3 code for WRAP boards. The Tranzeo should talk with an SR9 since they both use an Atheros base. The only trouble will be the driver and that I can't speak to. Lonnie On 8/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, To clarify please, I assume your saying that you are awaiting your first shipment of Tranzeo 900's for your own usebut others have already deployed WAR Boards V3 or WRAPs with the Tranzeo 900 solution. Is that correct? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tranzeo 900's and SR9's We are awaiting our own shipment but customers have reported good results with WAR boards and the new V3 for x86 WRAP boards. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Rick Harnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, has anyone successfully deployed the Tranzeo 900 solution with SR9's > yet? Mikrotik, Ikarus or Star-OS? I'm looking for real results so I can > start making decisions. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rick Harnish > > President > > OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc. > > 260-827-2482 > > Founding Member of WISPA > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Ed Whitacre Loves His WiMAX
I have 40 mbps to my house and it is not WiMax and I am the CEO of a much smaller company. If that is the best a huge company like that can do then they will not be a threat to anybody. Lonnie On 8/3/06, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://gigaom.com/topics/att/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
