Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet
Mike Hammett wrote: Then why don't WISPs deploy a proper grounding system? Hmmm, Ok, I should have read the entire thread. Any WISP who does not deploy a proper grounding system is asking for it. We ground to copper "halos" that are attached to three eight foot copper clad rods. There are grounded surge supressors between each antenna and each radio and there are grounded surge supressors on each PoE line between the radio and the switch. The switch is grounded. So I can't say why someone else does not deploy a proper ground but I can say that we have not lost a radio in two years. I hasten to add that is not braggin' and please don't get me God, I didn't mean it to sound like anything but thanks. -m- - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message ----- From: "Michael Erskine (804) 436-9428" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet Mike Hammett wrote: Why is it, then, that there aren't more radio\TV station outages due to lightning? They have to have done something to reduce their chances of a direct hit on those 1200' towers. A good grounding system that bypasses the communications systems. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet Nothing stops direct hits. A spark that traveled through miles of air isn't really going to care what else is between it and the ground. Good ground is the lifesaver for nearby hits that induce wild voltages. And following the code is always best for the health and safety of the people. Jonathan Schmidt wrote: This has been my experience, Scott. I have seen lightening enter an enclosed device and simply burn a hole right in the middle of a circuit board with nothing else damaged. On my desktop PC, lightening apparently came in through the cable, through the cable modem (destroyed) and down the Ethernet, through the Linksys (OK) to the PC and the only other damage was the motherboard Ethernet. I replaced the modem and bought a PCI Ethernet card and it's fine. What paths lightening took in this incident or the above incident is anyone's guess. There is still controversy over the value of diverting or directing lightening and/or lightening leaders and streamers to protect against a direct hit. It's really fascinating and here's a fun place to start you thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod Nevertheless, good enclosures fed with metal conduit that's well grounded appear to do well but the local ordinances need to be heeded. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet If properly grounded, the opposite is true. The ground wire should direct the lightning to ground (hence the name) and away from your equipment. Not to mention that in the case of an equipment failure that causes the power supply to put 120VAC on the case, etc., the ground wire directs the current to ground, not you. It is always about safety. I would much rather have dead equipment than dead personnel because an electrical system was not properly grounded. Dennis Burgess wrote: YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN A GROUND WIRE! The reason for that, is that then it gives lightning etc the ability to go though your equipment vs the tower ground! B On 5/22/07, Scott Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Again, Check your local code before you copy this. No ground is not allowed here, unless somehow you can prove it is a temporary extension cord. Neither is low voltage in same conduit at 120VAC. That said, small changes to Dennis' configuration will make good installation. Run the cat5 in a separate (metallic) pipe (rigid, EMT, Sealtite, whatever you like). Ground the bottom of the pipe. I would leave the top ungrounded, but that is: 1) personal preference (eliminates ground loops). 2) determined by which way gives you the best performance, least interference from the FM. You may want to use cat5e or cat6 as the twist is tighter, thus accepting less interference as well. Run a ground wire with the power. Even for the low current required at the top, I would probably run 14AWG or 12AWG. Lowers the inductance, may allow less noise to be induced on the power leads. Besides, 14AWG is the smallest wire you can run with a 15amp breaker. Same thing with ground loops; I would probably use a plastic box and thus isolate the power ground from
Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet
Mike Hammett wrote: Why is it, then, that there aren't more radio\TV station outages due to lightning? They have to have done something to reduce their chances of a direct hit on those 1200' towers. A good grounding system that bypasses the communications systems. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet Nothing stops direct hits. A spark that traveled through miles of air isn't really going to care what else is between it and the ground. Good ground is the lifesaver for nearby hits that induce wild voltages. And following the code is always best for the health and safety of the people. Jonathan Schmidt wrote: This has been my experience, Scott. I have seen lightening enter an enclosed device and simply burn a hole right in the middle of a circuit board with nothing else damaged. On my desktop PC, lightening apparently came in through the cable, through the cable modem (destroyed) and down the Ethernet, through the Linksys (OK) to the PC and the only other damage was the motherboard Ethernet. I replaced the modem and bought a PCI Ethernet card and it's fine. What paths lightening took in this incident or the above incident is anyone's guess. There is still controversy over the value of diverting or directing lightening and/or lightening leaders and streamers to protect against a direct hit. It's really fascinating and here's a fun place to start you thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_rod Nevertheless, good enclosures fed with metal conduit that's well grounded appear to do well but the local ordinances need to be heeded. . . . j o n a t h a n -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 5:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FM Radio and Ethernet If properly grounded, the opposite is true. The ground wire should direct the lightning to ground (hence the name) and away from your equipment. Not to mention that in the case of an equipment failure that causes the power supply to put 120VAC on the case, etc., the ground wire directs the current to ground, not you. It is always about safety. I would much rather have dead equipment than dead personnel because an electrical system was not properly grounded. Dennis Burgess wrote: YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN A GROUND WIRE! The reason for that, is that then it gives lightning etc the ability to go though your equipment vs the tower ground! B On 5/22/07, Scott Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Again, Check your local code before you copy this. No ground is not allowed here, unless somehow you can prove it is a temporary extension cord. Neither is low voltage in same conduit at 120VAC. That said, small changes to Dennis' configuration will make good installation. Run the cat5 in a separate (metallic) pipe (rigid, EMT, Sealtite, whatever you like). Ground the bottom of the pipe. I would leave the top ungrounded, but that is: 1) personal preference (eliminates ground loops). 2) determined by which way gives you the best performance, least interference from the FM. You may want to use cat5e or cat6 as the twist is tighter, thus accepting less interference as well. Run a ground wire with the power. Even for the low current required at the top, I would probably run 14AWG or 12AWG. Lowers the inductance, may allow less noise to be induced on the power leads. Besides, 14AWG is the smallest wire you can run with a 15amp breaker. Same thing with ground loops; I would probably use a plastic box and thus isolate the power ground from the enclosure, tower, etc. One good way to do it is consult a local commercial/industrial electrician. They will know the code for your area. But they don't always understand radio and induced voltages. Dennis Burgess wrote: We are located at 400 foot on a FM tower, 100,000 watts at the top of 1400 foot. The total length of CAT 5 is 440 foot or so, and plug directly into a RB532 at the top of the tower (power at the top as well) We ran a felexable conduit up the tower, inside, 16awg solid copper, one black, one white, (for the 110), NO GROUND, and also in that same conduit, we ran good outdoor, sheilded CAT5, UV Resistant (even though it is fully enclosed), and we get a 100meg link without issues for the most part! One thing we did do, is ensure that we were on the other side of all the transmission lines running up the tower. Dennis On 5/22/07, Andrew Niemantsverdriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am co located on a tower with an FM transmitter. The FM station runs at 105Mhz. We were running one AP at 10 half duplex to overcome the havoc that the FM station created on our ethernet feed. We now need to run that l
[WISPA] Mea Culpa
I owe everyone on this list a clarification and an apology because I provoked Peter to anger. There are those who believe that getting the person you are debating with to become angry somehow makes a point. I am not one of those people and the only way to prove that is to apologize to him in the same forum where I offended him. Peter, I did not intend to provoke you and I am sorry that I did. Personally I was not offended by your language and never even noticed it until I made a similar mistake on another list and started reviewing posts. To those of you on this list, I am sorry that I disrupted the list and I'll be more careful in the future. Special thanks to Rick who does such an excellent and thankless job of moderating the lists. Michael Erskine -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] RE: Are you for sale?
LOL. I see I ruffled a few feathers. Of course that works both ways. Russ; You say if we could all just work together and get along. Absolultly, and working together towards a goal which is *mutually* healthy is one thing. Spewing FUD is another thing entirely. Then you said, I should find my delete key if I don't agree with what is being said here. Not going to happen, Russ, sorry. If I choose to state my opinion and I can do so without being insulting, I have as much right to do that as you, or Matt. I'm sure you understand that. Peter; You say, > Is there FUD? Sure. Why? Mainly because no one wants to take the time to do their own Due Diligence or talk to an Authority. They want the Cliff Notes from the list. No such thing in this case. I guess you didn't actually read the FAQ or you would understand how it was actually realized. The last markup on the WISPA FAQ was done by the FBIs CALEA attorney. You may have researched my background but I'm betting you didn't find much. You say Mike, I tried to check the references for the people who wrote the FAQ. Uh. You guys have no more experience than Matt or me or Marlon. We don't have any less experience either. There is a very talented group working on the CALEA committee and they have gone to talk to the people who have the responsibility for implementing CALEA compliance for all LEAs. They are not just spending a few dollars and letting their attorneys, or their vendors tell them what they have to have. Don't you suppose if we had any worries at this point that we would be in here telling you the sky was falling ourselves? Honestly, WISPA asks for volunteers to work with the FBIs CALEA group. People volunteer. People take the time to read the docs, collect the questions, and then they spend their own time and money to visit the Quantico to present the questions. They come home clean up the results, pass the results before the attorney for the FBI and deliver them to you folks and people like you, and Matt, and Russ want to continue running around the room like henny penny. Help yourselves, then, if you must. Matt; Michael Erskine wrote: > What makes you such an authority on CALEA, Matt? What qualifications > or experience with CALEA do you bring to the table that give credence > to the fear that you are mongering on this list? Purchasing > compliance does not constitute authoritative knowledge. > For one, we are actually CALEA compliant. So are we. The only difference is that when and if we are ever served I am going to have to work a couple of all nighters. Getting there required understanding the requirements, speaking with our attorney, and working with our vendors. We did this months ago as a necessary and timely thing to knock out. This does not make you personally any more knowledgeable than any other person who has done the same thing. Most of the committee have done pretty much the same thing. Since that time we have watched people who aren't compliant act as authorities on the subject. So back at you... What qualifications or experience with CALEA do you bring to the table? Go review the FAQ document and see what it tells you about how that document came to exist. BTW, working experience with LEAs doesn't mean much since CALEA as it is being applied to ISPs is entirely new and no one has experience with it. Privacy rights and privacy law are not new. Title III and Title 10 are not new. Evidence handling is not new. Intercept is not new. CII is not new. As a matter of fact Matt, the ONLY thing that is new is that CALEA now applies to packet switched traffic. You knew that. > Most ISPs will be able to satisfy the CALEA requirements for less than > $200.00. Yep, that is what I said. When the WISPA Standard gets > blessed, and I did say when, there will be an open source > implementation. It will provide safe harbor and it will run on low > end hardware. Having had the personal experience of working with the > LEAs a number of times since about 1990 I feel perfectly comfortable > in expressing my dismay at the egregious misinformation and negative > speculation you have posted on this list. CALEA compliance is only > going to be a problem for those WISPs who refuse to do due diligence > in coming to compliance. > Today is May 9th and your discussing a standard that doesn't exist and hasn't be approved. What happens to all the ISPs waiting on WISPAs standard come Monday? Well actually we have been in collusion with the FBI on this and Monday they are going to send out every available agent to arrest and imprison any WISP who is not compliant. We have been collecting their addresses for months now... ;) You're safe though because you have been preaching the word of truth to the myriad non-compliant WISPs out there and we know you know all there is to know about CALEA. Should they just be non-compliant and wait for your solution?
[WISPA] Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt -or- The SKY is NOT falling.
I have seen numerous posts on the WISPA list indicating that a cost effective and compliant solution for this issue was being worked on and would become available in the near future. || I think that is wishful thinking on some people's part. When you see || companies like Cisco struggle to provide a minimum of support on a small || subset of their products you can begin to imagine the scope of the || problem. Every post I have seen where people have suggest a solution, the || suggestion only solved one specific part of CALEA. Solving part of the || problem is not enough. Actually you have to remember that a CALEA request will pracitcally never touch upon all the different information that CALEA defines. The only real time streaming requirement is VoIP and similar protocols. In all other cases a competent *nix wizard could script a basic sniffer solution in an afternoon, which would satisfy the intercept requirement in any collection scenario that does not include a real time component. The CALEA compliance committee clearly stated that the LEAs are going to be working with the ISP to help them satisfy the subpoena. They further said that they would usually be working with the ISP even before a subpoena would be issued. I have seen numerous posts indicating that small providers should not be concerned and that attaining CALEA compliance would not put them out of business. || I would argue that small providers should be very concerned. Not just || about CALEA, but a concerted effort on the part of large telcos to ruin || competition through seemingly legimate public safety issues. This is true, but this issue is not one of the ones the telco's are using. Sadly, CALEA was originally intended for circuit switched networks only unfortunately the LEAs worked in concert to convince the FCC that it should also apply to packet switched networks. This is primarily due to the fact that VoIP and other real time communications protocols were rapidly migrating to the IP world. There was not time to get congress to address the packet switched world with a new law. The facts remain that our business model currently is profitable and we are providing a valuable service in a rural area. The added costs of CALEA compliance jeopardize our ability to continue providing service. Who needs to explain to the hundreds of happy customers I currently service in a rural community that they no longer have high speed internet and don't have an alternative broadband solution? || Unfortunately, many consumers will lose as small companies go under. This || won't be the first policy that is designed for the good of the many as || opposed to the few. It isn't fair, but it is done. Small companies will not go under in becoming CALEA compliant. First the smaller you are the less likely it is that you will *ever* be subject to a subpoena. Second, the smaller you are the *easier* it will be to satisfy the subpoena because you will likely *know* the target personally. Your network architecture will be important but CALEA does not permit the LEAs to require to have to significantly modify your network. Read the FAQ. If someone has better information on how a small ISP can become CALEA compliant in a cost effective manner, please contact me as I am all ears. If there is better information or a defined solution being presented on the WISPA member list, I am more than willing to pay membership dues to access it. If there isn't a better solution being discussed there, I would just as well save the due money as it will probably not be long before we are out of business or sell to a larger competitor and the membership will be useless. Save the dues money. It will probably be all you need to become compliant. :( || I personally do not believe that any CALEA can be cost effective. Quite || simply, solving CALEA requires spending money without earning any || additional revenue. The only way to justify the CALEA expense is to accept || it as a cost of doing business. This means simply that your market || opportunity is lost if you aren't CALEA compliant. I firmly believe every || service provider should have plans for being CALEA compliant or have plans || for exiting the business. This one is different than E911; the liability || will be staggering. If you did not file your 477, why not? If you want a voice with the FCC they need to know we exist. The FCC states that they have only had about 400 wireless ISPs file their 477s. There is also a pretty good estimate that there are about 4000 wireless ISPs. If we want the FCC to listen to us as much as they listen to the ILECs, we need to make as much noise as the ILEC's. If we prove to them that we don't care what they do (and not filing that 477 speaks volumes in that regard), what are they to do? People, CALEA is not going to kill your business. Read the FAQ. Discuss the FAQ. This ripping of the vestments and beating of the breasts is for f
