[WISPA] test

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
hi there 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
301-515-7774
IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


[WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs?

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi

Guys,

I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of 
CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs.  I was surprised when I recieved my first 
bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
(they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet 
IP) 
Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am 
just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an 
End User Internet circuit. 

In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.  
I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband 
only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. 
And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect 
such fees from me.  If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my 
claim to my upstream.

THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost.

First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the 
State.
Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was 
applicable it was  always only around 6%.

Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am 
just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an 
End User Internet circuit. 

So questions are

1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to document 
my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what 
is the current % rate?
4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I classify 
myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a CLEC).
5) Does it matter how I use the circuit?  
6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly?

Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
Cell 301-300-8248
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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


[WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi

 Excellent Summry. Can you clarify.

 In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar to
 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could transmit
 at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was 
increased
 via antenna gain.  Does that still apply for the new  UNII   5.750-5.850Ghz
 rules?

 I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new 
outdoor
 use of Unii 5.1 Ghz.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM
 Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands


 On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 14-30)
 in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules.  The actual RO
 text was released later in the week.  For the most part, it came out
 well for WISPs.  Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of
 interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been
 opened to outdoor use.  Note that this was not the final word on 13-49.
 It focused on the U-NII-1 band (5150-5250) and U-NII-3 band
 (5725-5825).  The proposed new U-NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands were not
 addressed.  Those are more controversial and await a later RO.

 Key changes that were announced:

 The 5725-5850 ISM band (Rules Part 15.247) was essentially merged with
 U-NII-3 (15.407).  The upper band edge of U-NII-3 was moved from 5825 to
 5850 to match ISM.  Wideband digital operation was removed from ISM,
 limiting 15.247 operation on that band to frequency hopping spread
 spectrum (narrowband) and the FH portion of hybrid devices.  As of one
 year after publication in the Federal Register, no new 15.247 wideband
 devices will be type-approved for that band, and sale and importation
 must stop in two years. Existing devices may continue to be used.

 The WISP community did dodge a bullet here, as the new U-NII-3 rules are
 closer to the ISM rules than to the old U-NII rules.  In particular, the
 proposal to limit EIRP of fixed point-to-point links to +53 dBm, the old
 U-NII-3 limit which did not apply to ISM, was not adopted. Fixed
 point-to-point U-NII-3 operation can still have unlimited antenna gain
 with 1 watt transmitter power.  Some of the credit goes to WISPA, who is
 acknowledged in the Order. (Cambium too, while its former parent
 Motorola Solutions was on the wrong side.) Power spectral density rules
 were also modified to a favorable outcome.  The old U-NII-3 rules
 required 20 MHz bandwidth for full power.  The new rules are closer to
 ISM's, requiring a minimum 6 dB bandwidth of only 500 kHz for full
 power.  Point to multipoint EIRP is still capped at +36 dBm.  So there
 is little lost in the new rules, although the new type approval
 procedures will be just a bit harder than the old ones.

 The second major area of change was the U-NII-1 band, 5150-5250. This
 had been limited to indoor only use with a +17 dBm power limit.
 Globalstar, the low-earth-orbit satellite, is the primary user here,
 using it for backhaul (not handset) uplinks, and while LEOsats in
 general did not catch on as the FCC had expected when the old rule was
 written in 1997, Globalstar did not want its background noise level to
 be impacted.  A deal was worked out that is still pretty good.

 Under the new rules, outdoor operation is now allowed, and the rules
 there are based on the old U-NII-3 rules.  So the power limit is 1 watt,
 and access points may have up to 6 dB gain without lowering power (i.e.,
 a +36 dBm EIRP cap).  Point-to-point links may have up to 23 dB gain
 without lowering power (i.e., a +53 dBm EIRP cap). Mobile and portable
 client devices in that band are capped at 250 mW (+24) with 6 dB gain
 (i.e., a +30 dBm EIRP cap).  There is no explicit rule for fixed client
 devices, like WISP CPE, so it appears to be treated as portable, as the
 definition of fixed, point-to-point explicitly excludes
 point-to-multipoint systems. This could be rather limiting and might
 merit a little ex parte discussion with the Friendly Candy Company.  The
 rule was written with WiFi access points (is CableWiFi messing up the
 spectrum in your neighborhood too?) in mind.

 In order to protect Globalstar, outdoor U-NII-1 access points have to be
 sure their EIRP more than 30 degrees above the horizon does not exceed
 +21 dBm.  This seems pretty easy, unless say you're doing a steep
 point-to-point shot upwards at a skycraper.  Another rule requires
 operators who install more than 1000 outdoor U-NII-1 APs to notify (by
 letter) the FCC and acknowledge that they will take corrective action if
 it does interfere with licensed users.  So the average WISP won't be
 affected but big cable-style or city-wide deployments could have to 
 notify.

 Minor changes were made for U-NII-2 (5250-5350 and 5470-5725), were DFS
 is required

[WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
Guys,

I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of 
CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs.  I was surprised when I recieved my first 
bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
(they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet 
IP) 
Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am 
just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an 
End User Internet circuit. 

In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.  
I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband 
only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. 
And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect 
such fees from me.  If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my 
claim to my upstream.

THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost.

First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the 
State.
Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was 
applicable it was  always only around 6%.

Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am 
just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an 
End User Internet circuit. 

So questions are

1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to document 
my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what 
is the current % rate?
4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I classify 
myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a CLEC).
5) Does it matter how I use the circuit?  
6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly?

Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
301-515-7774
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
Fred,

Ok, so in summary

A WISP Internet Provider is an Information Service and does not collect or 
charge USF. And that end-to-end Internet Information Service solution is 
composed of 3 In-line components, working togeather as one.

1. Wireless last mile (provider me)
2. Fiber-based Metro IP transport (provider A)
3. IP transit  (provider B)

And the sole purpose and use of the Metro-IP Transport link is to deliver 
information Services to the End User, as a part of the solution..

So, you are saying. Under that Circumstance, the Metro IP tranport layer 
can not be claimed as a wholesale Component of an Information Service, 
and WISPs must consider themselves an End User of telecommunications 
Services, and be subject to USF and Taxation on that circuit, because 
Metro-IP Data services are considered Telecommunications services, 
regardless of how they might be used.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:55 PM
Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands


 On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
   Excellent Summry. Can you clarify.

   In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar 
 to
   2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could 
 transmit
   at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was
 increased
   via antenna gain.  Does that still apply for the new  UNII 
 5.750-5.850Ghz
   rules?

 Under the old ISM rules for 5725-5850, there was no EIRP limit for
 point to point:

 (ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ
transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without
any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power.

 Under the ISM rules for 2400-2483.5 MHz, there is a 1 for 3 rule, so you
 can keep 2/3 of the EIRP above +36 that comes from antenna gain:

 (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used
exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ
transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided
the maximum conducted output power of the intentional radiator is
reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna
exceeds 6 dBi.


 Under the old U-NII rules for 5725-5825, there was an EIRP limit on
 point to point that was higher than the +36 dBm limit for point to
 multipoint.

 For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters
that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB
reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for
each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required.

 So the old EIRP point to point limit under U-NII was +53 dBm.  The FCC
 proposed making that the new unified rule, but -- WISPA and members to
 the rescue! -- ended up adopting the ISM no EIRP limit instead.  Get
 those Rocket dishes out... but only above 5725.


 (BTW, ISM refers to Part 18 RF heaters.  15.247 is the unlicensed
 intentional radiators using bands where ISM is the primary user of the
 frequency, hence the nickname.)

   I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new
 outdoor
   use of Unii 5.1 Ghz.

 Correct.  The 5150-5250 U-NII-1 segment inherits the old U-NII-3 rule
 that everybody got around via the ISM rule (boy is that confusing),
 capping EIRP at +53.  The new 5150-5250 fixed rule:

 For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna
 gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output
 power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of
 antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi.


 - Original Message -
 From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM
 Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands


 On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 
 14-30)
 in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules.  The actual RO
 text was released later in the week.  For the most part, it came out
 well for WISPs.  Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of
 interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been
 opened to outdoor use.  Note that this was not the final word on 13-49.
 It focused on the U-NII-1 band (5150-5250) and U-NII-3 band
 (5725-5825).  The proposed new U-NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands were not
 addressed.  Those are more controversial and await a later RO.

 Key changes that were announced:

 The 5725-5850 ISM band (Rules Part 15.247) was essentially merged with
 U-NII-3 (15.407).  The upper band edge of U-NII-3 was moved from 5825 
 to
 5850 to match ISM.  Wideband digital operation was removed from ISM,
 limiting 15.247 operation on that band

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode47/lii_usc_TI_47_CH_5_SC_I_SE_151.pdf

Regarding State TaxesIn support of Faisal's statements

 The term ‘Internet access service’ does not include telecommunications 
services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used,
or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access. 

The Document further clarifies in multiple cases that telecommunications 
services purchased for the use to provide Internet Access are included as 
Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Faisal Imtiaz 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:27 PM
  Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs


  hmmm.. not quite accurate...


  Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to 
internet access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access.


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet  Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232



  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 




--

From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for  WISPs



I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport and 
not an internet circuit. 


As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet access. 



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net 
wrote:



  Guys,

  I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of 
CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs.  I was surprised when I recieved my first 
bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
  (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro 
ethernet IP)
  Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I 
am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
  So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not 
an End User Internet circuit. 

  In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.  
  I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing 
Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State 
Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or 
collect such fees from me.  If so, I need to provide legal documentation to 
support my claim to my upstream.

  THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
  The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
  The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
  The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber 
cost.

  First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by 
the State.
  Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was 
applicable it was  always only around 6%.

  Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I 
am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
  So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not 
an End User Internet circuit. 

  So questions are

  1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
  2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to 
document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
  3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, 
what is the current % rate?
  4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I 
classify myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im 
not a CLEC).
  5) Does it matter how I use the circuit?  
  6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly?

  Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code.

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  301-515-7774
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
  ___
  Wireless mailing list
  Wireless@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


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





--


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


Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
Im not understanding what you are asking, but

The link I provided was the bill (internet freedom act) extended through Nov 
2014, stating that it made it federal law that no state could tax  Internet 
Access in any form.
The uncertainty came in what the definition was of Internet access. And it is 
clarified in the text that telecommunications services used for Internet access 
was considered INternet Access and not taxable by the State, unless the state 
was grand fathered.

(note, Im referring to my upstream trying to charge me VA communication tax. 
This does not apply to USF since USF is not a tax)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Matt Hoppes 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:38 PM
  Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs


  State?  Or Federal?  I read that as USC - so it would be Federal. 

  Sent from my iPad

  On Apr 15, 2014, at 8:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net wrote:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode47/lii_usc_TI_47_CH_5_SC_I_SE_151.pdf

Regarding State TaxesIn support of Faisal's statements

 The term ‘Internet access service’ does not include telecommunications 
services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used,
or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access. 

The Document further clarifies in multiple cases that telecommunications 
services purchased for the use to provide Internet Access are included as 
Internet Access.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Faisal Imtiaz 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:27 PM
  Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs


  hmmm.. not quite accurate...


  Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to 
internet access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access.


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet  Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232



  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 




--

From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for  WISPs



I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport 
and not an internet circuit. 


As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet 
access. 



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net 
wrote:



  Guys,

  I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current 
status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs.  I was surprised when I recieved 
my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
  (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer 
metro ethernet IP) 
  Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile 
Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
  So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, 
not an End User Internet circuit. 

  In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.  
  I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing 
Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State 
Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or 
collect such fees from me.  If so, I need to provide legal documentation to 
support my claim to my upstream.

  THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
  The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
  The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
  The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber 
cost.

  First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed 
by the State.
  Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF 
was applicable it was  always only around 6%.

  Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile 
Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
  So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, 
not an End User Internet circuit. 

  So questions are

  1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
  2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, 
to document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
  3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if 
so, what is the current

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs

2014-04-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
Regarding USF

 wholesaler must have evidence that the reseller customer both “(1) 
[incorporates] the purchased telecommunications services into its own 
offerings, and (2) can reasonably be expected to contribute to support 
universal service based on revenues from those offerings.


In the past it was possible to be exempt from your upstream from charging you, 
by only declaring that you were a reseller, and all that you had to do to get 
exempted was to show that you utilized the telecommunications services in your 
own retail offerings. The advantage to USF, would have been the ISP would 
likely sell the retail service for more money than the wholesale price and 
therefore collect higher USF funds. However, the loop whole for the ISP was 
that once they were exempt with their upstream, there was not much control to 
verify how much USF the downstream ISP would collect or be required to collect. 
For example, if the reseller ISP only sold information services Internet 
Access, the ISP would never collect or pay USF.  So, the above quoted clause 
did away with that loophole, by adding section (2), now making it a requirement 
that the wholesaler reasonably expect the reseller to pay into the USF based on 
revenues from those offerings. Meaning Wholesalers could make downstream ISPs 
prove they are paying into USF before allowing exemption.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Faisal Imtiaz 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:46 PM
  Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs


  They all do. (i.e. try to screw the ISP/NSP/WISP) 


  Chase down the person in-charge of their Tax Dept, and ask them for ITNA Tax 
Exemption Form


  :)


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet  Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232



  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 




--

From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:44:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for  WISPs



Oh really?  Comcast wants to charge me 16% USF on a point to point to carry 
Internet traffic. 



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 15, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote:



  hmmm.. not quite accurate...


  Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to 
internet access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access.


  Regards.


  Faisal Imtiaz
  Snappy Internet  Telecom
  7266 SW 48 Street
  Miami, FL 33155
  Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232



  Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 




--

From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for  WISPs



I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport 
and not an internet circuit. 


As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet 
access. 



Sent from my iPad

On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net 
wrote:



  Guys,

  I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current 
status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs.  I was surprised when I recieved 
my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
  (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer 
metro ethernet IP)
  Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile 
Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
  So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, 
not an End User Internet circuit. 

  In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.  
  I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing 
Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State 
Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or 
collect such fees from me.  If so, I need to provide legal documentation to 
support my claim to my upstream.

  THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
  The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
  The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
  The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber 
cost.

  First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed 
by the State.
  Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF 
was applicable it was  always only

[WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core

2014-01-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a 
redundant topic or not.

Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using 
as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, 
OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN  tagging)? 

To be more specific  Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a 
third party Quad core 3Ghz model.

What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by 
software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing
- multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port?
- which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a 
unique processor or use multiple processors?

Is 1.2Ghz enough?

Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we 
learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as 
only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ 
ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) 

Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to 
routing that were written to be only single processor support.
Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor 
possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 
primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router.
 
In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added 
features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing 
power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published 
port throughput.  

For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors?  

Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for 
high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? 
In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on 
location of parameter.
 




Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
301-515-7774
IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core

2014-01-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
Sam, 
Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter 
rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor.
That is good to learn.

Eric,
Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is single 
core, if it can use a unique core.
My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core.

Faisal,
A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full 
throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for full 
throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86 
processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs arent 
X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to handle the 
load of other processes.  

Paul,
Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs, 
sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP Router. 
It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we temporarilly 
put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR.

Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be seen.
In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as Sam's 
example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to spread 
out the load.

Last Question:
Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed 
per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because 
when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a router 
port can push the full GB versus say 50%. 
It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber 
infrastructure prematurely.

Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve 
theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? 

1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size?



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Sam Tetherow 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM
  Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core


  Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036.  Set up as a transparent 
bridge for traffic shaping.  Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge 
filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 and 
all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print

  The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps.  The whole thing 
could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree entries, 
but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth limiter and they 
wanted to keep that setup.

  Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have been 
pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat.



  On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a 
redundant topic or not.

Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, 
using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections 
(w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN  tagging)? 

To be more specific  Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say 
a third party Quad core 3Ghz model.

What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used 
by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing
- multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port?
- which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross 
to a unique processor or use multiple processors?

Is 1.2Ghz enough?

Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, 
we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as 
only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ 
ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) 

Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating 
to routing that were written to be only single processor support.
Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor 
possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 
primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router.

In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with 
added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the 
processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical 
published port throughput.  

For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors?  

Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for 
high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? 
In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending 
on location

[WISPA] Can anyone serve Vail Colorado?

2014-01-16 Thread Tom DeReggi
Can anyone serve Vail Colorado wirelessly?

If interested, I need a reply today before end of business.

I got a profitable event job for someone.

reply to t...@rapiddsl.net

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
301-300-8248
301-515-7774
IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down

2013-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
I personally believe Genachowski was out of tune with the reality of the 
Broadband Industry, and Im not disappointed he's stepping down.
But... the risk is always in the unknowns of who comes next. Its like being a 
small winner at a game show, and then being asked, do you want to take the 
minimal money or instead take whats inside the Question Mark mystery box?   

What I will say is... when ever someone new comes incharge, there is always 
more advocacy work to do than the day before.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Sean Heskett 
  To: a...@afmug.com ; us...@wug.cc ; WISPAGeneral List 
  Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:49 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down


  Just FYI...not sure if this is good, bad or ugly???


  
http://news.yahoo.com/fcc-chairman-genachowski-step-down-141103205--finance.html



--


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


[WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?.

2012-08-17 Thread Tom DeReggi
Any WISPA members, WISPs or Contractors, serve Downtown Houston, TX?

If so, I'd like to refer an exciting profitable job to you, for an event.  

(Originally, I was going to fly down and do it, using a 24Ghz link to a nearby 
building with Cogent Fiber. But unfortuantely I have a conflict I cant get out 
of, so my company will be unavailable to accept job)

If interested, reply to me ASAP, and I'll disclose details.
There is plenty of time before event date, but I could really use a reply today.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
301-515-7774
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


Re: [WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?.

2012-08-17 Thread Tom DeReggi
Thanks.

I kind of did fall off the earth. My personal life got real ugly this year, so 
I had to refocus my time. But RapidDSL is still alive and doing well.
I hope to get back to WISPA more in the Fall.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Steve Barnes 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?.


  Tom Good to see you on the list.  I had thought you had fallen off the 
planet.  I hope all is well.  I miss your insights.

   

  Steve Barnes

  General Manager

  PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
  Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:47 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?.

   

  Any WISPA members, WISPs or Contractors, serve Downtown Houston, TX?

   

  If so, I'd like to refer an exciting profitable job to you, for an event.  

   

  (Originally, I was going to fly down and do it, using a 24Ghz link to a 
nearby building with Cogent Fiber. But unfortuantely I have a conflict I cant 
get out of, so my company will be unavailable to accept job)

   

  If interested, reply to me ASAP, and I'll disclose details.

  There is plenty of time before event date, but I could really use a reply 
today.

   

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

  301-515-7774

   



--


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


Re: [WISPA] UBNT AirFiber Radio Pics

2012-03-27 Thread Tom DeReggi
Any way you look at it, the UBNT 24Ghz product is a game changer. Its 
bringing a price point, that will mass excellerate the adoption of 24Ghz 
use.
At that price, there are 1000s of uses.  Its very exciting. Its also a big 
bonus that it is MIMO, which should give it a good link budget, compared to 
the methods other technologies use to accommodate dual pol.

What I dont like about it is that it uses to much spectrum and is to fast, 
which will cause parties to deploy faster speeds than they need, simply 
because they can, and cause more interference in urban areas, and reduce the 
number of links in an area. Often people incorrectly think that millimeter 
is like inteference free. What they forget is the low range is based on Rain 
fade, but when its not raining the signal goes very far, and reflections can 
reflect all over the place, even though narrow beamwidth.

But there will still be a strong market for other products like SAF.  For 
example, windloading and mounting.  I jsut bought a SAF radio for that 
reason, where the 1ft dish option was preferred.
SAF also has 256QAM support, quite a bit more efficient than UBNT's 64QAM 
limit, allowing high speed in smaller channels, allowing more radios to be 
colocated at a single site.

I think UBNT's marketing is their typical overstated marketing.. Just like 
AIRMAX 5.8 where they promote as 300mb, when in reallity Dual Pol 20Mhz 
channels, the common size that can be used, yields more like between 40mb 
and 80mb depending on link budget and noise floor.  So in doing apples to 
apples comparisons, its important to take that into consideration. For 
example, a 13mile link just isn't going to happen in my rain zone, but might 
be doable in the desert.  With 2ft dishes, I dare not go over 2-1/4 miles, 
and still prefer under 1.5m.

I believe the UBNT 24 product will also put a hurting on the 60Ghz market.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

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


[WISPA] Licensed 1ft dish?

2012-03-21 Thread Tom DeReggi
Are both 18Ghz and 11Ghz  limited to minimum 2ft dish size? 

Just wondering if 1ft was allowed?


I know, some might ask why? Because its for a really short link (200 ft) that 
has to be 350mb+ FDX, but dont want to use 60G millimeterwave, because the 
viable mounting options are not stable enough to prevent sway and safely 
reliably support that tight of a narrow beamwidth.   
I'm pretty sure, I'll end up doing this in 23G, which allows 1ft dish, (similar 
beamwidth to 11G with 2ft).  But just wanted to double check rules for 18 and 
11.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chuck Hogg 
  To: victo...@stlbroadband.com ; WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages


  I don't think you understand.  A GFCI outlet is a mechanical device.  You 
can't reboot it.

  Regards,
  Chuck



  On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Victoria Proffer 
victo...@stlbroadband.com wrote:

Can you set it on an auto-ping?



Victoria Proffer

STLWiMAX, LLC

314-974-5600



From: Brian Webster [mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:02 AM
To: victo...@stlbroadband.com; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages



The remote reboot power strip does nothing for you if the GFCI outlet or 
breaker has tripped, that needs to be reset unless it’s an auto reset device.



Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Victoria Proffer
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:40 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages



Is there a remote power strip that can be activated by a cell phone?



i.e. 

strip  cell phone  pstn  my computer



Victoria Proffer

STLWiMAX, LLC

314-974-5600



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Ryan Ghering
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages



We don't use them at towers, but I have here at home auto resetting GFCI 
outlets for my 
Saltwater reef tank. Got them from Home Depot.. They reset automatically 
after a few mins..

Ryan

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com 
wrote:

You have to have GFCI outlets indoors?  I've never heard of that
regulation before.

A few thoughts come to mind:

* Battery backup with 2 or so hours of run time along with a remote page
for a power outage.  Doesn't prevent you from having to dispatch but it
keeps you from having an outage.

* Re-check code?  I don't understand why you need a GFCI outlet inside
your shack.You don't have a sink or other water nearby.  I don't
have GFCI outlets in my office.  Maybe I'm missing something here.

If you are mounting an outdoor NEMA box with your equipment and just
plugging into a GFCI then maybe you can figure out some way to get a
hardwire into the box rather than plugging into an outside GFCI?


On 3/16/12 9:04 AM, Troy Settle wrote:
 Ok, so to keep to code, we have a GFCI outlet for most of our towers.
 One of them tripped last night, causing me to have to put on some 80
 miles just to push a button (yes, it could have been much worse).

 Is there anything to prevent stupid outages like this from happening
 without violating code?

 Thanks,

 --

 Troy Settle, Network Administrator

 The Wired Road Authority

 1117 E. Stuart Dr.

 Galax, VA 24333

 (276) 238-0049 (office)

 (276) 237-3890 (cell)

 tset...@thewiredroad.net




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




-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879


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






--


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


Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages

2012-03-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
Troy,

Related to GFI We've removed all GFIs from our implemntations for this 
reason. We try to redesign our isntall plan to a way that code wont require the 
GFIs.

As far as Dragonwave versus Mikrotik, one rebooting and not the other. The 
Dragonwave draws more current than the Mikrotik to operate, so its not 
surprising, if a short brownout spike occurred that the power flowing was 
enough to keep the mikrotik running, but not the Dragonwave.

One way to help with that is to have a overspec'd UPS. Running a UPS at 44%, 
power storage capacity in its capacitor's will be less sufficient to cover for 
power drops, than if the UPS was run at a lower load.  Another way to deal with 
it is to modify the setup to a Dual realtime power feed situation, so better 
chance one of teh two systems will deliver power, before a switch to battery, 
or if a breaker trips on one of the power circuits.



 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Troy Settle 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages


  Next stupid outage at a different site.

   

  Specs:

   

  Generac 8KW generator

  Automatic Transfer Switch

  APC 450 rack mount UPS

  Mikrotik RB1200

  Mikrotik RB435 (3x 802.11n sectors)

  Dragonwave Compact Horizon #1

  Dragonwave Compact Horizon #2

   

  (I don't know how many horses, chickens, goats, pigs, and other critters are 
onsite, but I don't think they're an issue).

   

  Total load on the UPS is at 44%, estimated run is 25 minutes (long enough for 
the generator and switch to do their thing).

   

  Radios grounded to the tower, tower grounded and bonded to the shack.  Shack 
has two rods (panel - Rod - Rod - Generator).

   

  Everything inside is bonded as well, including the drain wires on all the 
Cat-5.

   

  Yesterday, the Dragonwaves rebooted several times during the storm, but 
neither RB lost power even once.

   

  Any guesses?  I'm sleeping on it over the weekend, but probably need to get 
it figured out before too many more storms come over the mountains.

   

  Thanks,

   

  -Troy

   

   

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Troy Settle
  Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:05 AM
  To: wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages

   

  Ok, so to keep to code, we have a GFCI outlet for most of our towers.  One of 
them tripped last night, causing me to have to put on some 80 miles just to 
push a button (yes, it could have been much worse).

   

  Is there anything to prevent stupid outages like this from happening without 
violating code?

   

  Thanks,

   

  -- 

Troy Settle, Network Administrator

The Wired Road Authority

1117 E. Stuart Dr.

Galax, VA 24333

(276) 238-0049 (office)

(276) 237-3890 (cell)

tset...@thewiredroad.net

   



--


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


Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing

2012-03-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
yeah, that's an excellent example, of what I was getting at...
A transaction at of that sort, (low antenna count and low price) wouldn't spark 
a alot of interest, or atleast not at a low cost per antenna, waiving fees.
Heck, last time I place an antenna upgrade, the app touched like 10 different 
people as it went from stage to stage. The cost to a tower company to accept a 
small # antenna app is almost as high as accepting an order for many antennas. 
Ther are many tower Cos that are happy accepting 1 antenna apps, but they also 
charge $500 per antenna in those cases, because there is a minmum transaction 
level to make it worth while to process the order, and in most cases could get 
5 for the same price..

They could always help out as a good gesture, good neighbor, charity type 
thing, but then again some would say, what about the liabilty, or the reason 
we charge the big bucks is that our towers are build stronger to surive the 
tornados. Why give away our value? 

One of the mistakes I've made in the past is, I represented Help me, I wont be 
a pain on your resources, All I need is 1U of space, all I need is help for a 
month, can you help me out on the price? 
No sales rep cares about that. To get help I have to represent, I'm ready to 
commit to a five year contract, I'll need a lot of resources from you, I need 6 
antennas today, and I expect to add 3 times that by the time I'm complete, if 
you give me a good price today. 

But, that said, I hear you.

It sucks most for the rural end user. The one that has to look at the 300ft 
tower in their back yard everyday, but still cant get broadband, because of the 
tower cost..

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 2:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing



  Honestly, what i'd need to put up on this crown tower is three radios ; one 
as a backhaul,
  a 5.7 omni and a 900 mhz omni.

  Wouldn't need it if the tornado hadn't destroyed the downtown tower site we 
were on
  (and the owners weren't taking forever to rebuild it)

  can't see the justification happening...

  we've got everyone moved to a different tower except for four people

- Original Message - 
From: Tom DeReggi 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing


I dont doubt the claims made, but

Our experience with Crown has been very positive. I'd argue probably 
easiest of all, after all things considered, reviewing our last 10 years as a 
WISP and working with tower companies.

Going into these type agreements, meaning with any national tower company, 
its important to recognize that tower reps are just like any other large dollar 
large volume leasor/landlord, where there are managers and lawyers on staff, 
that look at the letter of the law and every minute detail in their contracts, 
and make decissions from a far as a NON-Emotionally-attached apponent. They 
represent their interests, not yours.  Most of the initial template contracts 
are written to be one sided in favor of the tower leasor, and are clear about 
the tower company's remedies in cases of a Leasee's default, and not so clear 
on what if any remedies are availale to the leasee in cases of Leasor's breach. 
That is unless you've been fortunate enough to get the terms changed to be more 
favorable to you, before you signed them. terms (meaning length of time 
commitment) specifically is a common issue of challenge, after a falling out 
occurs.  Anytime something evolves to a legal battle, its likely going to 
evolve to a situation that would be considered unfortunate or ugly for all 
parties involved. Its the equivellent of a divorce for business..  

I'd also argue that Tower companies are probably still taking a beating 
financially right now. I'm sure the Clearwire failures have led to large scale 
revenue loss nationwide. And I'm sure BTOP/BIP programs of the past 2 years 
weren't helping much, encouraging wireless companies to build their own towers, 
instead of entering into rental type lease agreement for colo space.  The 
tower consolidators probably paid well to aquire the other tower companies. 
There are big dollars at stake, and they need to target big revenue to get 
their ROI..   

At the end of the day, a leasor has to say why do I want to help this 
guy, what's in it for me?. If this isn't going to be one of my customers, why 
shouldn't I rake every last penny out of them that I can? Even if it seems 
unethical or unsympathetic, doesn't loyalty have to be given to the stock 
holders, and my wallet, first?. 

I can tell you, I've worked with some ruthless landlords over the years, 
and comparatively Crown was a Saint, no where near that level of Bad.  I delt 
with one leasor (NOT related

Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing

2012-03-11 Thread Tom DeReggi
, if the lessor's goal is to get more money, try to get 
something in return for that that would be worthwhile for you to spend that 
additional money. Maybe more antenna or Freq bands for that higher price. That 
would be more beneficial than paying more per antenna. In other word, if the 
goal may be to get more money, they might not care how they accomplish it, and 
may be open to suggestions)

3) You'll be more likely to get what you want if the end result is staying a 
customer of theirs, as there is a cost to them for every decission, and they 
have a better chance to cost justify a favor, it they can make back their money 
over time from you. 

4) Dont go over your primary contact's heads, unless you are truly convinced 
that that party is a big part of the problem. If so, my guess is that higher up 
supervisors probably would help and would want to know about it, if the primary 
contact really was not doing their job appropriately.

5) If the terms of a transaction are not acceptable to you, DONT DO THE 
TRANSACTION.  Under stand that for that property, there may just not be a 
match. There is a lot of competition out there, and there are likely other 
tower leasors around to consider instead.  Moving towers, isn't always as 
expensive and disruptive as one might think. 

6) The most important part in establishing a good vendor, is being able to have 
meaningful dialogue between you and your rep, to negotiate, where both parties 
can hear each other, and look for accomplishing mutually beneficial. If a 
vendor does not provide that for you, then you need to change reps or look 
elsewhere.   (You also need to be able to provide that).  

7) If you are moving in the direction where you likely wont be a colocation 
customer at that site, try and make it that that decission was made by the 
landlord. Meaning, Create the perception that you'd like to be there at X 
specified terms. So you give the rep a chance to have your business. You are 
then the good guy. Should they then turn that down, and not want to lease to 
you, then it is on them, that they lost your business.   (They surely cant hold 
you responsible for them turning away your business).  In other words, always 
propose a resolution, or the solution that would work for you, for their 
consideration.  


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: bret clark 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing


  We have good relationships with the local Crown rep people who have been good 
to work with, so no horror stories, but the start up fees to get on one of 
their towers is just ridiculous..I'm not an ATT or Verizon with a gazillion 
$$$. I would probably do a lot more business with Crown, but only had 2 arms 
and 2 legs and they are long gone!


  On 3/11/2012 10:26 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: 
I was told there would be a change at WISPALOOZA...after 6 weeks of 
negotiations, we walked away.  A friend of mine decommissioned a Crown site he 
was on.  They removed everything.  Some how a cable hanger was still there.  
Crown is fighting with them to get them to pay back rent for that one cable 
hanger.  The claim was $14,000 in back rent and $4,000 to remove the cable 
hanger.  Each month that $14k increases. 

Regards,
Chuck



On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote:


  Looked at a Crown tower today - and remembered the horror stories.
  Not interested unless there is a real change.


- Original Message - 
From: Ralph 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 9:13 PM
Subject: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing


I wish I could say nice things… I wish I could say nice things.  But 
Mama told me that if I can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.

I have a pretty good Crown Castle horror story developing.  I will be 
glad to share the details if things do not get ironed out, and quickly.



I will say that if you are considering it, do not get into a contract 
with them. They still think we are all Cell Carriers or Clearwire!





If the representative from the “Kinder, Gentler, WISPA member Crown 
Castle” happens to be listening, I think he needs to reply to me off list!





Ralph

Brightlan.net 




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



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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT

2012-03-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
All the UBNT radios can perform at about the same speed. (assumming they all 
have the proper link budget for antenna size, and ofcourse understanding 1x1 
models are half of 2x2 models).
The bigger differenciaters are mechanical, meaning mounting, shileding, 
cabling, etc.

1) Can the radio mount on strong 2-3/8 mast, or just limited to less than 
2 which usually ends up being 1-1/4 mast.

2) Does mounting have a single point of failure?  Example comparing smaller 
Nanobridges (21db) that have only one Ubolt, versus larger Nanobrodges 
(25db)that have Dual Ubolt.

3) Is cat5 cabling easy and quick to remove or visible, either for verifying 
health of connection, on roof maintenance, or removal/swap?

4) Is CAT5 securable? For example, the Bullets itself cant really be mounted 
vertically, without risking crushing case, other than maybe with duct tape 
:-) If mounting to an Omni, the omni is what gets mounted, and the mount 
type must be offset enough for bullet clears the mast. Most often Bullets 
are just mounted direct to the back of panel direct to N connector. The side 
effect of that is the cat5 connection is extending back out into the open 
air. Where do you secure the CAT5? A mast may not exist behind the bullet. 
So the CAT5 just flapps around in the wind, which can weaken CAT5 
connections over time. Obviously the CAT5 will get looped around and 
fastened to the mast eventually, but there is more cable length left 
unsecured close to teh bellet's connection. Compare that to a rocket, 
Nanobridge, or Nanostation, where the CAt5 cable shoots stright down 
directly to the direction of the Mast. This allows cable to be secured with 
the least amount of strain on the cable from high winds.  With bullet if 
Condensation allows moisure in, where does it drip, based onthe orientation 
of the Bullet? Compare that to a rocket.  We use bullets alot, and I'm not 
saying they are not adequate, I'm just saying, for critiical links, these 
little differences make big differences in uptime reliabilty over time. 
One maintenance trip to an easilly accessible radio is probably more than 
the cost to upgrade to the higher grade solution. If you wave setup 
equipment fees, but bill by the hour for house visits thereafter, use the 
Bullet :-)  We used to use Bullet alot because it was single pol. But now 
that the command exists to disable a pol on the new rockets, we are starting 
to use Rockets instead.

 Everything has a trade off. We use the Nanobridge25 dishs most commonly. We 
hate the CAT5 access for those radios and that it doesn;t fit 2-3/8 mast, 
but its a trade off we live with to get low price, tight beamwidth w/ good 
front to back isolation, enough gain for most anything (we can always turn 
tx power ain down for short links) shooting for high modulation everywhere, 
small cosmetic look, and double Ubolt for more secured mounting.

The comparison I like to make is the Nanobridge25 to the Rocket in an ARQ 
inclosure. Its the difference between $80 and $225.  When it really matters, 
I'll usually use the ARQ solution, its a bit better. But for most subscriber 
situations, the Nanobridge is plenty good enough. Almost always, because the 
Nanobridge only support 2 mast, I have to additionally buy a pole to pole 
mount, to mount a 1-1/2 pole to the pre-existing 2-3/8 mast to be able to 
mount the Nano, which is a pain in the neck and more uglier. But even then, 
the pole to pole mount only costs me $30, and I'm still half the cost of the 
ARQ solution.  When it really matters, and I have a bit more distance and 
flexibilty cosmetically wise, I'll just use the UBNT 29 dish and Rocket, 
which is only a $260 solution.

The power bridge is really pretty. And its worth paying the higher $300 
price tag, if you want it to look pretty, and can survive with only a 2 
mount bracket, or dont mind buying an additional pole to pole mount to make 
it less pretty.. It also allows you to just take it out of the box and 
install, without the quick fabrication necessary with the ARC/Rocket 
solution.  Allthough I still prefer the ARQ/Rocket solution over 
powerbridge.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe aajayi...@as-technologies.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT


What's the difference in performance between a powerbridge and and airbridge 
on a 2mile 20MB link.


Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
AS Technologies Ltd
Tel. 234(0)8023258027





--

This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the 
intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, proprietary and/or 
confidential information. Any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution 
or copying of this e-mail and any attachments for any purposes that have not 
been specifically authorized by the sender is strictly prohibited. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please

Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 issue

2012-03-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
Ive found the problem usually to be a failing TLink, and the necessary 
solution to usually be replace the TLink with a new Tlink

I'm never quick to replace a Tlink with another brand, if the Tlink has 
enough capacity for the purpose of the link.
With TLinks, I have solid indicators when a radio is operating properly or 
not. Thats important. With other brands, (like UBNT), its sometimes harder 
to know for sure whether a link is working optimally, from the perspective 
of the end user's throughput. Not to mention, TLinks great for legal 5.4 and 
5.3.

A couple things to check
I've seen two other things cause the same symptom...

1) The power supply going bad. Fixed by replacing power supply.

2) Out of alignment antenna. If the  antenna gets severally out of 
alignment, for example if the radio is dangling towards the roof because the 
mast got knocked over or pulled out of the wall brick in high winds, and the 
link needs to struggle to stay associated, there can be a huge amount of ARQ 
retransmissions, and it can over tax the software, and evenually the 
software crashes. I dont know why, I'm not their programmer. Maybe its some 
sort of exceed buffer type of thing.  In some cases it will get bad enough 
where the RF communicates, but one side of the link will not pass traffic 
through it, meanting between the wired Ethernet and RF. The quick fix is to 
reboot either side. Because the RF is up, its also possible to remotely 
reboot the CPE or AP side.  And even oif the CPE is the failed unit, 
rebooting the AP will fix the CPE. I dont know why it occurs, but it does. 
When these symptoms exist, often when I do Sysinfo, it only shows a small 
bit of info, and then hangs.

So in summary, before calling a equipment bad, visually verify the equipment 
is still properly mounted.

Please note these symptoms are rare to occur, and do not occur on 
non-defective Tlinks that are properly mounted, with proper link budgets.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 issue


 Planning to order something in the morning.  This is our primary link.
 I have to keep it going.

 On 3/4/2012 7:10 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:
 That was the symptom right before the master died.

 Put in a rocket5 and was done with it.

 Jerry Richardson
 Sent Mobile

 On Mar 4, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Scott Reedsr...@nwwnet.net  wrote:

 I have a pair of TL45 that do a2 mile link.  At peak times we are
 moving 35Mbps across the link.  Randomly the MU and or RU will have
 issues.  First indication is high latency across the link.  Logging into
 the units and doing a sysinfo will generally show the first two lines or
 so and then after a pause display failed.
 Any idea what we need to do to stabilize this link?

 Hardware Version 5055
 Firmware Version 2p0r2D08072301
 System Up Time 01:51:08

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



 Mikrotik Advanced Certified

 www.nwwnet.net
 (765) 855-1060
 (765) 439-4253
 (855) 231-6239


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


 -
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4850 - Release Date: 03/04/12



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



 Mikrotik Advanced Certified

 www.nwwnet.net
 (765) 855-1060
 (765) 439-4253
 (855) 231-6239


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

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


Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

2012-02-28 Thread Tom DeReggi
Yes, according to FCC rules, DFS2 must be used for new installs.
But, if you have a grandfathered SITE, you are allowed to repair that site 
with a replacement radio, and accordingly its legal for the manufacturer to 
sell it for that purpose..
(I'd argue manufacturering laws might require keeping replacement parts 
available).

As far as installing new CPE locations on pre-existing 5830 sectors? 
According to the rules its not allowed.
But then again, how would anyone know what was pre-existing? The secondary 
market for legacy 5.3gear is still alive and well, because of that factor..

The reality is that no one cares, because the problem will naturally fix 
itself with time, and FCC has better things to do than harrass people for no 
reason.
The fact is... putting up legacy 5.3G isn't going to hurt or interfere with 
anyone, if in small scale, and not worth anyone's time to determine what was 
or wasn't pre-existing, if no harm is being done. At the same time,  no 
manufacturer is going to continue making new batches of product that has 
become obsolete.  No US WISP is going to standardize on a legacy products 
anymore in large scale. The world is migrating to requiring faster speeds. 
The ROI for newly putting up old obsolete sectors, is not high.  Most WISPs 
are going to want to put up new sites/sectors with gear that has some 
growth potential, and meet's today's broadband demands, to maximize their 
ROI.

My point is, there really isn't a long term problem here.  Allthough, in 
the short term, there may be some frustrating choices to make.
All I know is, I'm gonna keep trying to get as much life out of my 5830s as 
long as I can, because they simply work headache free.
(although admittedly, its getting harder where there is signficant colo 
costs, due to the lower CPE/AP ratiothat the market now requires)

The good thing about the 5830, is that it is a legally certified radio of 
its day, so if operating at a grandfathered site for 5.3G, its got a sticker 
that says its legal..

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear


A contact at the FCC told me years ago that it meant you can not do
 /new/ installs of the old DFS gear. Anyone have a FCC rep saying
 something different?

 Why not Canopy? $2000 AP's, $400 CPE and 3~4mbit. I am sure that has
 came down since my first Canopy pack back in the pre-nehalm(sp) days.

 Looking at Axxcelera. Might be in the same vein and Canopy. Anyone
 with experience that wants to share? I do not want to just
 buy a stop gap product that will work till Ubnt get their stuff ready.
 This is going to be direction we head in once we find gear.

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

2012-02-28 Thread Tom DeReggi
No question that Canopy stayed in the PtMP game longer, to go beyond the 
10mb barrier, with advantage line and OFDM..

But to keep it real  At a typical Trango Link Budget / Max distance, 
inserting a legacy Canopy w/ its inferior small antenna size and weaker link 
budget, Canopy would be lucky to get 5mbps, if it could even associate in 
our noise floor.  How quickly its forgotten, the Canopy 8db AP integ 
antenna, and Trango's 14db-18db AP integ antenna, gaining Trango the winning 
link budget, even after considering the C/I.  It brings back memories of the 
past.. The every day, CAnopy versus Trango thread :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear


 Yup, Its been 10 years since I used it in my wisp. When the next line
 came out it did no better then Atheros based radios in my environment
 and cost 5x as much to deploy. I do not have a business rich
 environment, and even if I did, they do not like $500 installs and
 $100/mo. This makes my primary target residential users. Ubnt delivers
 now, just not in 5.4-5.7 and I have pressure
 to expand as well as have room to move around a competitor who has 5.4
 links now but wants to replace them with 5.8. There is no (or very
 little) 5.8 room due to how and where both of our towers sit.

 On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com 
 wrote:
 Yikes, seem ages you haven't looked at Canopy, Classic Aps do 14 Mbps, 
 new ones 45 Mbps, next one (Q2 2012) 90 Mbps

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
 Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:40 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

 A contact at the FCC told me years ago that it meant you can not do /new/ 
 installs of the old DFS gear. Anyone have a FCC rep saying something 
 different?

 Why not Canopy? $2000 AP's, $400 CPE and 3~4mbit. I am sure that has came 
 down since my first Canopy pack back in the pre-nehalm(sp) days.

 Looking at Axxcelera. Might be in the same vein and Canopy. Anyone with 
 experience that wants to share? I do not want to just buy a stop gap 
 product that will work till Ubnt get their stuff ready.
 This is going to be direction we head in once we find gear.

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

2012-02-28 Thread Tom DeReggi
We did an evaluation of Axxelera a number of years back, and we felt it was 
a pretty hot product, and more affordable than some of the alternatives..
(But then Ubiquiti came out with Dirt cheap MIMO)

Axxelera Rep,

Are you saying Axxelera now has a MIMO prioduct, that supports either MAtric 
A and B?

When looking at Axxelera previously (prior to mimo), I noticed the 15Mhz 
channel size (Not quite the 20Mhz we desired most, but better than 10Mhz 
trends of Wimax or First generation OFDM Canopy)

What channel size/width is Axxelera's MIMO products?

Is the MIMO line still using true TDD constant carrier APs, or instead like 
the many other just using wifi chipsets that dont constantly transmit?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Freylekhman, Alex afreylekh...@axxcelera.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear


 Gino,
 In regards to the 90mbps -  2x2  mimo can either be set as matrix A or B, 
 there is a  decision to be made if you go after distance or capacity.



 Aleksander Freylekhman
 Sales Director, North America
 Axxcelera Broadband Wireless
 a Moseley Company
  p: (804) 864-4125
  m: (440) 220-2192
 afreylekh...@axxcelera.com
 www.axxcelera.com



 -Original Message-
 From: Gino Villarini [mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:17 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

 Yikes, seem ages you haven't looked at Canopy, Classic Aps do 14 Mbps, new 
 ones 45 Mbps, next one (Q2 2012) 90 Mbps

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
 Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:40 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

 A contact at the FCC told me years ago that it meant you can not do /new/ 
 installs of the old DFS gear. Anyone have a FCC rep saying something 
 different?

 Why not Canopy? $2000 AP's, $400 CPE and 3~4mbit. I am sure that has came 
 down since my first Canopy pack back in the pre-nehalm(sp) days.

 Looking at Axxcelera. Might be in the same vein and Canopy. Anyone with 
 experience that wants to share? I do not want to just buy a stop gap 
 product that will work till Ubnt get their stuff ready.
 This is going to be direction we head in once we find gear.

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

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


Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear

2012-02-27 Thread Tom DeReggi
The 5830's shipping firmwares have 5.3Ghz support removed from the radio, 
because the radio platform does not support DFS of any kind, and is not 
legally usable in the USA on 5.3Ghz anymore, unless to repair a pre-existing 
site that was grandfathered, and originally installed prior to the rule 
change.
Older Firmwares supports 5.3G, and can be applied for repairing 
grandfathered sites, or for use Internationally.

The 5830 was (still is) a great product, but its chipset was designed prior 
to DFS days, so its for 5.8G now, for requirements up to 10mb HDX.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear


 The Trango site says For export only. Not for U.S.A. on the 5.3
 gear. This would indicate it has DFS but not DFS2. Am I looking at the
 wrong product?

 http://www.trangobroadband.com/wireless-products/multipoint-broadband-access/Access5830-System.aspx


 On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Josh Luthman
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
 Trango 5830

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



 On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.net 
 wrote:
 Is there anything out there that is DFS2 certified for PtMP ? I know
 of Canopy and (someday) Ubnt. Everything else
 I know if is hi-cap PtP but all my links are to long for those.

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

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


Re: [WISPA] painting an antenna

2012-02-23 Thread Tom DeReggi
Quick answer... stix primer from Lowes 

A couple tips on Painting

You must use non-metalic non-carbon paint, to avoid RF loss.

As well, you must use a paint that bonds properly to your specific material 
Steel, Aluminum, Plastic, ABS. There are many types of plastics, and they each 
have their own chemical requirements for proper paint type for bonding.  Many 
paint types used or  recommended by radio manufacturer are paids for high 
production factory applications, and not typically sold in small quantity and 
often require sprayers. 

The easiest way to solve the problem is to use a Primer.  If you use the 
proper primer, then you have the option to use a wide varierty of inexpensive 
over the counter paints with worry free bonding.  

 Stix is an excellent choice for Primer. Its sold at Lowes, inexpensive, and 
can be used over metal and most plastics, such as those used most commonly for 
Antenna radomes. 

After one coat of Stix, you can then paint over it with standard exterior 
household latex paint.  We use Valspar Duramax Exterior Latex, with FLAT 
finish, also sold at Lowes. 
(You still need to make sure paint is non-metallic/non-carbon, which the 
Valspar is.) 
   
We prefer Flat instead of Gloss paints because, when an antenna is high on a 
roof, glossy paint will reflect the sun more, and make the antenna look like a 
bright light, and stand out like a sore thumb.

Primers are also easy. You'll will only need one coat of paint over the primer. 
The paint should be applied over the primer before the primer is fully dry, for 
optimal bond. (obviously not when the primer is still wet.). Generally, paint 
can go on within 30min after primer applied.  
 
Using hardware store stock paint, allows you to save a bunch compared to 
specialty paint stores. For example, a common Sherman Williams or McCormick 
paint design for Plastic without a primer could easilly cost $150-$200 a can, 
where as a gallon of ValSpar is $30, and Stix about $20.

What happens if you dont use a good primer, and just paint household paint on 
Plastic? Well, within 6 months, the paint will be peeling off everywhere and 
make a big mess.

If you have a good place to paint in advance, sure there are many good choices 
for acrylics, enamels, or oil based. But using water based Latex makes for easy 
clean up, and easy re-painting if ever needed, which works well for field 
painting.

Dont get confused by all the different paint types, that cobine types, for 
example acrylic latex, or acrylic enamel, etc. It doesn't really matter, when 
painting over Stix. As long as using the good primer, Latex should work fine.

The other thing is, painting over a pre-existing paint with the wrong type can 
cause negative chemical reactions, and also cause poor bonding, or peel after 
words.
The solution to that is to use the Stix primer. It can be painted over most 
factory paints without worry, and allows most paints to be painted over the 
Stix. 
The secret is the Primer, not the paint..

I'm not saying that Stix is the best, but I know Stix is non metalic and non 
carbon and meets the requirements for antenna painting.  Many Primer 
manufacturers do not like to disclose what their primer is made of because its 
their secret competitive recipe, so its hard to get out of the manufacturers 
whether it is metalic or carbon based or the loss it could have to RF.
 
Another note, Paint looks a different color indoor than it does outdoors. I'll 
mix it to look light, and then outside it will look to dark. So make it lighter 
than you think you should. Also note, its much easier to make paint darker, 
than it is to make it lighter. So if you make it to dark, it takes a lot of 
paint added back to lighten it up.

As for color choice... I've had little luck painting to match the sky. The 
reason is the color of the sky changes depending on the time of day and the 
weather.  If trying to match the sky, use a lite (almost white) sky blue. I 
prefer to match antenna paint to the same color as the building it is mounted 
to, because a perfect match can be obtained, so it blends in with the building, 
and does not stand out. Anythign a different color than the building will draw 
the eye's attention to it. Painting to the sky color only makes the antenna 
look transparent 25% of the day, when it matches the sky, and the rest of the 
day when it doesn't, it stands out.  

 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Patient 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] painting an antenna


  Krylon Fusion but not red,  brown, or black.

   

  Old hillbilly test is to paint a business card, let it dry, and microwave it. 
 If it gets hot don't use it.

   

  Jim

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Eric Roth
  Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:03 AM
  To: WISPA General

Re: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for unsubsidized competitor

2012-02-16 Thread Tom DeReggi
Seems like interesting idea.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for unsubsidized 
competitor


 At 2/16/2012 07:01 PM, Kevin Sullivan wrote:
I don't know enough about the CLEC stuff to say for sure, but that sounds
interesting. Would that let you get local DID's for VoIP?

 Yes.  Numbers are given to CLECs, so you'd create a CLEC or team up
 with an existing CLEC that doesn't yet serve your area, and then
 could pull phone number blocks from NANPA.

Kevin
- Original Message -
From: Fred R. Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:57 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for unsubsidized
competitor


  The current FCC rules per November's CAF order allow ILECs to be
  subsidized to provide broadband unless there is an unsubsidized
  competitor who provides both voice and data service.  Jack Unger has
  written an excellent petition to the FCC to change that to allow it
  to be unsubsidized competition, wherein the data provider needn't
  be the voice provider.  But there's no guarantee that the FCC
  (currently down to three seated Commissioners) will take such action.
 
  A WISP can provide the needed voice service via VoIP.  It need not be
  a certificated CLEC.  However, to get the VoIP service and local
  numbers, it still needs a CLEC with a connection to (at minimum) the
  tandem switch serving its area.  In some rural areas, this might not
  be available.  So the WISP might need to create a CLEC, or at least
  get one to serve its area.
 
  While the traditional approach to starting a CLEC requires a
  switch, that rather costly item, which a lot of ISPs don't want to
  have to manage, can be finessed by using a remote gateway.  At least
  one CLEC I'm working with offers a remote rent a call agent
  service, where there Class 4/5 call agent, which is equipped with
  Signaling System 7 (a big expense), can serve gateways anywhere,
  passing signaling (H.248) across the Internet or, ideally, a VPN.  So
  the rural CLEC just has a media gateway and SBC, and orders trunks
  into the local central office.  The VoIP side of the gateway then
  feeds the subscribers.
 
  I'm trying to assess whether it's worth anyone's pursuing to set this
  up as an offering for WISPs. Does anyone see a market for this type
  of service?  Would it help anyone meet the unsubsidized competitor
  requirement?  Thanks...

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



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Future of Wifi Offloading WAS: Ericsson is buyingBelAir, betting on Wi-Fi

2012-02-10 Thread Tom DeReggi
 be that on occasion, once or twice a year tops, they close the 
streets for a city day where vendors setup booths on the street for a mini 
festaville. Its possible that on those days, the public MIGHT occasionally 
connect. Why they'd use their wifi and not their cellular broadband, I'd 
wonder.

I'm just not scared.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeremy L. Gaddis jer...@as54225.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Future of Wifi Offloading WAS: Ericsson is 
buyingBelAir, betting on Wi-Fi


 On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:22 PM, John Scrivner wrote:
 Here are my predictions based partly upon the acquisitions we have
 seen of Atheros by Qualcomm and now this latest play into Wifi by
 otherwise generally licensed zealots of the mobile world:

 [snip]

 I predict we'll see all this come to pass by 2017-18. We'll see how
 clear my crystal ball is in a few years. I hope you guys will remember
 this then and be sure to pull it up and make fun of me for being so
 far offor not!:-)

 I predict you'll see it well before that.

 Someone else in the thread mentioned Comcast and Time Warner planning to 
 roll out thousands of access points. Remember that both of these companies 
 are also in the cellular game now.

 What's (one of) the biggest problem(s) cellular carriers are facing right 
 now? The explosion in data traffic.

 They *need* to offload as much data traffic off of their networks as they 
 can. They simply cannot handle the projected long-term growth in data 
 traffic.

 Enter 802.11u.

 --
 Jeremy L. Gaddise: jer...@as54225.net
 Network Engineerm: +1.812.865.0581




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi

2012-02-01 Thread Tom DeReggi
Agreed. But I question the reasons, because there are more than one factor 
leading their interest.
Some of it is vendor pressure. Some of it Egos sore from past failed attempts. 
For example, the big Cable Cos were major investors in Clearwire (and maybe 
other WImax alliances), and had to pull out without a ROI.  Human phychy 
typical responses are either 1) that didn't wotk, forget that market, or 2) 
I'll show them (the world), we'll just do it ourselves and be in control of our 
investment, or 3) Of you fall off the horse, get back on and try a again, 
except more out of pride than good judgement.  Or maybe its just fear of a 
competitor being one up?.Verizon/ATT has the bundle and we dont, shouldn't we 
be competing with the Jones?  Or, some guy working from his basement can do 
this, surely we should be able to Lets explore it.  I'd find it hard to 
believe that the primary justification would be, we crunched the numbers and 
did some preliminary engineering, and this is one super exicting big profit 
venture.  Heck, I honestly can say, if I were the President of Time Warner or 
Comcast, and some bozo pitched the the board to start a 10,000 node wifi play, 
I'd probably fire them on the spot, on the basis that they were likely either 
blind or insane, and maybe throw in a few cheap shots like, Remember Cometa, 
Remember Clearwire, Remember Earthlink. Maybe even address the CAble Co board 
with, Lets not forget who we are, we are the best darn Cable Co in the 
country, lets keep it that way, no reason to tarnish our name with Wifi 
failures..  Unless, they pulled an infinity, and launched a different brand 
name for the wifi project.  Maybe its partially an attitude of what do we have 
to loose? IF the project fails, one up side is we destroyed teh RF environment 
to reduce WISP's effectiveness, a disruptive defensive measure masked as a 
legit project for public good.  Maybe its boredom? We got the money, why not 
try something new?

The other thing is they'll reaslize that its hard to deploy in public spots 
with the game plan that this is for Comcast subscribers. The venues will want 
Wifi for all patrons, not just patrons of Comcast. Sure it could be with a fee 
for everyone else, but again, the trend now adays is free wifi, and that is 
what public venues will want. Venues wont want the comcast wifi to interfere 
with their own.  These are generally the flaws that The big Cos dont recognize 
early on. Just becaues there is an intent to dbuy and deploy 10,000 nodes 
doesn;t mean one can find 10,000 useful places to install them, where they are 
allowed to install them.  

Maybe, I'm not the insightful one, but personally, I feel Comcast and 
TimeWarner would be much better off concentrating on expanding Cable to the 
remainign 24% of unserved rural Americans, than messin around with wifi.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mike Hammett 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi


  Agreed. The technology is different, the model is different, the reasons are 
different.

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


  On 1/31/2012 2:13 PM, Brian Webster wrote: 
Tom,

I have sat in on planning these networks with Time Warner 
and Comcast. The way they are building these versions they will work for their 
purposes. Trust me I have built a couple of large scale muni networks J In 
regards to the mounting issues, so long as they have above ground outside plant 
life will be good for them. These nodes mount on the suspended messenger wire, 
not the poles. That means they can just attach them to their existing lines. 
I'm not saying that it will be easy but it's much easier than someone else 
trying to build given the fact that they already occupy the space on said 
poles. They are also planning to ink deals with local businesses to mount nodes 
when necessary. Since they will be wiring every node to their network for 
backhaul, there is no requirement for any wireless meshing, just connectivity 
to the client device. They do not necessarily plan to have a contiguous network 
market wide, just where there are likely to be high concentrations of users. 
This also not meant to be a network that will hand off connections from node to 
node at highway speeds. They are assuming a relatively stationary user of the 
system. 



This whole design philosophy is quite different from the 
muni Wi-Fi networks most of us think about. The real reason they are building 
these is to keep customer churn down by offering existing broadband and video 
customers a free mobility component in areas they are likely to need it. I 
would expect they will also later ink some roaming deals will cellular carriers 
but that is not on their initial radar as of now

Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi

2012-02-01 Thread Tom DeReggi
 Earthlink has established quite the fiber and CLEC footprint.

Thats an interesting topic Really?  So they aren't primarilly still just 
marketing and reselling off other CLEC's infrastructure, like they used to?
I'm aware of the Atlanta project, where Earthlink was gonna do Fiber and CLEC 
stuff, but not aware of progress since then, or if they expanded to new markets.

The dream of owning the whole network is still far off for most Earthink types. 
Sure they can buy Fiber transport and peer like anyone else, heck Fiber 
backbones are almost as cheap as buying Wireless backhaul in many markets the 
last year or two. The trend is buy Darkfiber, Gig-E or 10G fiber for transport 
and interconnect to the data center, and call yourself an ISP. But then there 
is still the last mile, which is still mostly copper, that has to be bought 
wholesale from someone, or a risky model if one tries to build their own at the 
COs this late into the game. 
Because of that, I had still visioned Earthlink as a reseller.  

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mike Hammett 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi


  It's the cable co's fault they never got anything out of the different 
cellular ventures...  they just didn't market it.

  Cometa who? :-) Clearwire isn't going anywhere. Earthlink has established 
quite the fiber and CLEC footprint.

  They'll get a much better ROI on WIFI than expanding cable's footprint.

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


  On 2/1/2012 10:25 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: 
Agreed. But I question the reasons, because there are more than one factor 
leading their interest.
Some of it is vendor pressure. Some of it Egos sore from past failed 
attempts. For example, the big Cable Cos were major investors in Clearwire (and 
maybe other WImax alliances), and had to pull out without a ROI.  Human phychy 
typical responses are either 1) that didn't wotk, forget that market, or 2) 
I'll show them (the world), we'll just do it ourselves and be in control of our 
investment, or 3) Of you fall off the horse, get back on and try a again, 
except more out of pride than good judgement.  Or maybe its just fear of a 
competitor being one up?.Verizon/ATT has the bundle and we dont, shouldn't we 
be competing with the Jones?  Or, some guy working from his basement can do 
this, surely we should be able to Lets explore it.  I'd find it hard to 
believe that the primary justification would be, we crunched the numbers and 
did some preliminary engineering, and this is one super exicting big profit 
venture.  Heck, I honestly can say, if I were the President of Time Warner or 
Comcast, and some bozo pitched the the board to start a 10,000 node wifi play, 
I'd probably fire them on the spot, on the basis that they were likely either 
blind or insane, and maybe throw in a few cheap shots like, Remember Cometa, 
Remember Clearwire, Remember Earthlink. Maybe even address the CAble Co board 
with, Lets not forget who we are, we are the best darn Cable Co in the 
country, lets keep it that way, no reason to tarnish our name with Wifi 
failures..  Unless, they pulled an infinity, and launched a different brand 
name for the wifi project.  Maybe its partially an attitude of what do we have 
to loose? IF the project fails, one up side is we destroyed teh RF environment 
to reduce WISP's effectiveness, a disruptive defensive measure masked as a 
legit project for public good.  Maybe its boredom? We got the money, why not 
try something new?

The other thing is they'll reaslize that its hard to deploy in public spots 
with the game plan that this is for Comcast subscribers. The venues will want 
Wifi for all patrons, not just patrons of Comcast. Sure it could be with a fee 
for everyone else, but again, the trend now adays is free wifi, and that is 
what public venues will want. Venues wont want the comcast wifi to interfere 
with their own.  These are generally the flaws that The big Cos dont recognize 
early on. Just becaues there is an intent to dbuy and deploy 10,000 nodes 
doesn;t mean one can find 10,000 useful places to install them, where they are 
allowed to install them.  

Maybe, I'm not the insightful one, but personally, I feel Comcast and 
TimeWarner would be much better off concentrating on expanding Cable to the 
remainign 24% of unserved rural Americans, than messin around with wifi.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Mike Hammett 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi


  Agreed. The technology is different, the model is different, the reasons 
are different

Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi

2012-02-01 Thread Tom DeReggi
That makes sense. Well stated

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Fred Goldstein 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:08 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi


  At 2/1/2012 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

 Earthlink has established quite the fiber and CLEC footprint.
 
Thats an interesting topic Really?  So they aren't primarilly still 
just marketing and reselling off other CLEC's infrastructure, like they used to?
I'm aware of the Atlanta project, where Earthlink was gonna do Fiber and 
CLEC stuff, but not aware of progress since then, or if they expanded to new 
markets.
 
The dream of owning the whole network is still far off for most Earthink 
types. Sure they can buy Fiber transport and peer like anyone else, heck Fiber 
backbones are almost as cheap as buying Wireless backhaul in many markets the 
last year or two. The trend is buy Darkfiber, Gig-E or 10G fiber for transport 
and interconnect to the data center, and call yourself an ISP. But then there 
is still the last mile, which is still mostly copper, that has to be bought 
wholesale from someone, or a risky model if one tries to build their own at the 
COs this late into the game. 
Because of that, I had still visioned Earthlink as a reseller.  
 

  Earthlink has bought up a number of CLECs, making them one of the larger 
facilities-based CLECs.  This is indeed quite a change from their origins as a 
consumer-oriented ISP.  Now they are selling large-ticket business accounts. It 
was probably a smart move, since wireline ISPs have had a hard time of it, what 
with the general loss of common carriage and the ILECs' ridiculously high 
Special Access rates.  As a CLEC, though, they can at least get some DS1 loops 
at lower (UNE) prices, and run their own DSL over short loops.  Plus they get 
the regular CLEC product offerings.

  The cable MSOs are, in general, run by real business people who look at real 
profit potential.  This is in contrast to telcos, for whom profit is merely an 
assumption, an entitlement to be granted while they pursue their goals of 
power, control, and monopoly.  Since cablecos have no entitlement of profit, no 
USF, they don't invest where it doesn't make sense.  

  WiFi, however, is chump change.  They clamp an access point onto the 
messenger, tap into the DOCSIS for upstream, and they cover a few hundred feet 
of urban radius.  This is much cheaper than a mobile network, practically a 
rounding error in their finances.  Clearwire was a loser.  SpectrumCo turned 
out to be profitable in resale, not as an operating entity.  They can 
experiment with WiFi on a small scale, though, and see what kind of business 
potential it has.  Because it's their own backhaul, the OpEx is minimal.

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



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi

2012-01-31 Thread Tom DeReggi
Yes, a typical tactic for the sole purpose to destroy the RF environment, and 
scare high ARPU businesses and investors from trusting third party unlicensed 
wireless providers solutions.
Its all about fear factor. 
But Just like any other large scale MUNI network, it wont work, and will be to 
costly to maintain, and the bad press will incourage the Cable Cos to shut down 
the networks instead of continueing to damage their brand's reputation as a 
quality high speed resildential provider. They can plan to deploy 10,000 nodes, 
but planning has no value if there is no where to put/mount them.  Maybe they 
could mount them inside people's homes :-) Surely, they aren't going to work 
mounted on their tiny green 2ft pedestals on every corner.  Surely, they aren't 
going to pay landlords $200/month each to mount on 10,000 commercial building 
roofs. What they more likely would do is go put in Wifi access points into the 
communities that they do not want to dig up the streets and bring cable to, 
that the City/states are trying to force them to do with cable, leveraging the 
franchise agreement renegotiations. A  attitude like, get off my back, why 
spend $5000 to dig, when I can spend $200 on an access point and pretend we 
serve everyone, and make it a play on all the lobbying WISPs did to say, 
wireless is good enough for WISPs,  so it must also be good enough for Cable 
Cos. I could easilly see Comcast applying for USF, and using Wireless combined 
with Cable.

Time Warner is planning I believe around 10,000 node in the LA market this 
year and after they get that market proven, they plan on rolling out 
nationwide in their markets
 
Except the market wont be proven successful.  Funny how history repeats itself.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Brian Webster 
  To: 'WISPA General List' ; memb...@wispa.org 
  Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:16 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi


  It's not just the cellular industry. Comcast is deploying 18,000 outdoor 
wi-fi nodes this year and giving that service for free to their customers to 
keep them happy in a mobile environment and reduce churn. Time Warner is 
planning I believe around 10,000 node in the LA market this year and after they 
get that market proven, they plan on rolling out nationwide in their markets. 
The networks are specifically being designed for tablets and wi-fi enabled 
phones in a nomadic but not seamless mobile environment. Being that the cable 
companies who sold spectrum to Verizon for 3.5 billion dollars, they are using 
some of that money for these deployments.

   

  For those in those metro markets, these carriers are planning both 2.4 and 5 
GHz dual mode radios.

   

  Thank You,

  Brian Webster

  www.wirelessmapping.com

  www.Broadband-Mapping.com

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Jack Unger
  Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:00 PM
  To: memb...@wispa.org w; WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi

   

  In a sure sign that the cellular industry is getting serious about Wi-Fi, 
telecom networking giant Ericsson is buying BelAir Networks, adding its 
high-performance outdoor hotspot technology to its portfolio, sources told 
GigaOM. The deal could signal a big shift in the mindset of the big wireless 
vendors, which have always favored their own specialized and expensive cellular 
technologies to meet growing mobile data demand rather than more generic but 
much cheaper Wi-Fi tech...

  
http://gigaom.com/broadband/ericsson-pursuing-wi-fi-with-belair-networks-buy/




-- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.Author (2003) - Deploying 
License-Free Wireless Wide-Area NetworksServing the WISP Community since 
1993www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com   

--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Juniper Network

2012-01-25 Thread Tom DeReggi
I had a fun converstation the other day...

The consultant advisor's optinion was the Linux should be replaced with 
Cisco, on the merit that a soultion was needed that was well known, so 
investors would feel more comfortable knowing that operating the network 
didn't have to rely on me.  Then we discussed to operate the Cisco, we would 
need to hire a $150k per year Cisco engineer, at a cost 4x above the 
previous year's operating cost. So I responded questioning the consultant, 
so you are saying we need build a network that relies on a high salary 
individual other than I? So then if the network breaks, I'd be helpless, and 
I'd be in deep trouble, if the Network engineer quit or asked for another 
raise? The advise didn't sit well with me, and it had nothing to do with a 
technology comparison of the two products types, and I in no way mean to 
downplay the value of Cisco.

My point here is... The most effective router is really the one that the 
user is most familiar with. It doesn't matter how powerful the Cisco, 
Juniper and foundry are, if you and your techs dont know how to operate 
them, when you need to on a moments notice. Its really about, which 
selection will allow you to more easilly and speedily resolve the task at 
hand.

Its amazing how a $400 Linux Box (such as MIkrotik) can quickly solve a 
problem.

With that said, We've been looking into Juniper lately, I like that their 
new lines are all based on the same Juno OS, which is Linux. :-)

So, my recommendation is... What are you familiar with? Use that.

I'm not familiar with the Juniper model and foundry products listed to know 
if that is a good product to keep or not.

What I will say is, if uysing MIktotik, you want to consider more than jsut 
number of subs. What speed is the Internet backbone the MT would connect to?
How would you plan to use the Mikrotik, from a protocol feature perspective? 
A MT1100 will easilly push 100mb FDX traffic. But if you plan on having a 
lot of queuing and rules (x200 users), it can be slowed down very quickly. 
In those cases, its worth paying an extra $200-$400, to upgrade to one of 
the faster CPUcore type third party hardware models, such as sold by Baltic, 
Titan, or LinkTechnologies. A Dual core INtel 1.5G-2.4Ghz CPU model are very 
affordble and adds some horsepower for using MT features.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe aajayi...@as-technologies.com
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Juniper Network


I just took over an abandoned network which I have to get up and running in 
no time. There's a Juniper J2300, ISG 1000 and some foundry switches. 
Wondering whether to trash the equipment and put in an MT RB1100 in? We 
won't have more than 200 users at the peak. Need suggestions.

 Thanks

 Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
 AS Technologies Ltd
 Tel. 234(0)8023258027

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-requ...@wispa.org
 Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:00:06
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Reply-To: wireless@wispa.org
 Subject: Wireless Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22

 Send Wireless mailing list submissions to
 wireless@wispa.org

 To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
 wireless-requ...@wispa.org

 You can reach the person managing the list at
 wireless-ow...@wispa.org

 When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
 than Re: Contents of Wireless digest...


 Today's Topics:

   1. Re:  If radios act weird today... (~V~)
   2. Re:  If radios act weird today... (Jim Patient)
   3. Re:  If radios act weird today... (~V~)
   4.  Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) (Ben West)
   5. Re:  Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!)
  (Sam Tetherow)
   6. Re:  Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) (Ben West)
   7. Re:  If radios act weird today... (Tom DeReggi)
   8. Re:  Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) (Ben West)
   9. Re:  Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!)
  (Jeromie Reeves)
  10.  Solution for high bandwidth semi-mobile link (cj sattler)
  11. Re:  Solution for high bandwidth semi-mobile link (Gino Villarini)


 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:21:17 -0600
 From: ~V~ li...@stlbroadband.com
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] If radios act weird today...
 To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
 Message-ID: 001e01ccdac4$f74fa960$e5eefc20$@com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

 I am wearing it! ;-)
 And doesn't it have to be made of tin foil? :p

 ~V~

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Bret Clark
 Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:45 AM
 To: wireless

Re: [WISPA] If radios act weird today...

2012-01-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
Actually, I've observed RF issues from Solar Flares numerous times in the 
past. A common symptom is RSSI dropping up to 10 db temporarilly during the 
effected period on some paths.
Can be a problem for links operating on the threshold of acceptable link. It 
helps to know when the solar flairs come, just so you know to wait it out, 
instead of sending a truck to chase every temporary RSSI drop that day.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt Hoppes mhop...@indigowireless.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] If radios act weird today...


 YAWN.  I have yet to see a solar flare cause issues  not saying it
 won't... just saying the news media blows this stuff up every time.


 Matt Hoppes
 Director of Information Technology
 Indigo Wireless
 +1 (570) 723-7312

 On 1/24/12 8:53 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
 Solar flare blasts radiation storm toward Earth

 http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57364089-76/solar-flare-blasts-radiation-storm-toward-earth/




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference

2011-12-27 Thread Tom DeReggi
Only thing is... he is reporting that the use of the phone does not 
disconnect service, just the ringer ringing disconnects it.
I'm not sure that the Ringer has anything to do with the 2.4Ghz spectrum 
block. Or I should say, it would not use anymore spectrum ringing than 
Talking. I'd guess talking would use more, with a constant stream going. 
Buying a new phone could replicate the ringer problem.

I'd first confirm that it is in fact for sure just the ringer causing the 
problem. Make sure its not a power related thing or something like a radio 
power supply in same port as phone power supply, causing something to 
reboot, etc. If your CPE has logs, check them to verify if association was 
actually lost.

Most 2.4G phones that dont have selectable channels usually have sutomatic 
selecting channels that select channel at a specific step. For example, 
powering on the unit when the handset is in place, or hitting the find 
receiver button, when handset is in place, or what ever mechanism it uses. 
What you want to do is generate wifi noise on your Internet CPE radio or LAN 
WIFI channels (persistent pings), so that when the phone searches for a 
channel, it can hear noise on your channels, and can select something 
different.

My advise is to get the model number of phone before going on site, and 
using Internet to download the manual to review before initiating the tech 
support insodent with the consumer. Use phone support, to walk the end user 
through the proceedure of resetting the phone channel.  The advantage of 
attempting a basic fix with the customer involved is that it gives you an 
opportunity to educate the customer, to possibly avoid future unnecessary 
tech support calls.

Although I would agree that buying  the end user a new phone would be more 
cost effective than timely tech support on the WISP's dollar, I'd argue that 
WISP offering to pay for the phone would be a mistake, as it sets the 
presidence that you are willing to pay for things that aren't your problem. 
The next thing you know you are buying customers new free routers and wifi 
cards everytime there are unexplained issues with service.  What I'd 
recommend is recommending to the client that they buy a new phone, because 
phone are cheap, and maybe recommend a better brand. (Once you determine 
what a better brand is, such as Dect6 ones recommended.).

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference


Definitely DECT phone.  Version doesn't matter - it's all in the 1.9 band.

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



On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wa4...@arrl.net wrote:
 I would concur with this too

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Brian Webster 
 bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com wrote:

 With the price of cordless phones now days and the cost of your customer
 support time, I would just buy them a new phone. If you get a DECT 6.0
 version you are certain not to have problems. Those are used exclusively 
 in
 the guard bands around the 1800 MHz PCS frequencies and are set aside
 specifically for cordless phones only. It's also fairly cheap to get a 
 multi
 extension set.

 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com
 www.Broadband-Mapping.com


 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Scott Reed
 Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:11 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference

 I have a customer that has determined that every time the phone rings, 
 the
 Internet goes down. Once the phone is answered, the Internet works. We 
 are
 using 2.4GHz to the house, with an integrated Arc panel on the roof.
 The customer has checked and the phone does not have a channel selection
 button.
 Anyone have suggestions as to how to get the phone to not kill the 
 wireless
 link?

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



 Mikrotik Advanced Certified

 www.nwwnet.net
 (765) 855-1060
 (765) 439-4253
 (855) 231-6239




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

2011-11-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
 The FCC just had to have a date, and was nice enough to not close it
 too early.  This also gives WISPs time to do some more construction
 and have it included.


Thats one way to look at it.  (And probably the more productive way, 
recognizing the timeline to protect opportunity.)

 The whole-state rule applies to the big ILECs.  If they say no, the
 rules for the auction aren't written yet, and may work on a smaller
 basis.  I think that's one of the things to discuss in the FNPRM
 Comments, which are due 24 January.

But why would big ILEC's say, no ?
Isn't this process pressuring the ILECs to say yes. Giving the ILECs a 
second chance to get another free ride, now for broadband?
If ILEC took subsidee for Voice in past, why would they not do the same for 
Data?
Small ILECs might say no, because they might not have the funding or 
resources to take on a super large project even with subsidee.
But Big Telco surely has the finances. We can use ATT as an example, who is 
advertising to cover all of America in 5 years, anyway.

Do you think there is any chance that the big telco might say no in some 
states, I dont want USF?

It has happened in the past, to some extent. I can give the example of 
Verizon pulling out of a low profit analog market, and letting a smaller LEC 
take over such as either Century tel or Frontier (forget which LEC, and 
which Eastern state).. Back then it made sense with Verizon focusing on FIOS 
preferring to bypass regulation, that FIOS allowed them.
But would that same justification still be there, when USF subsidees are 
there to compensate?

 If the location is served on the National
 Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized
 competitor, it's off limits
..
 Again, only unserved areas will get
 support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an
 area that is more than 50% unserved.

Also, regarding those to comments in your original Email... I think the risk 
here is the same that it was with ARRA.
Whats the definition of unserved, and but more importantly what is the 
definition of area, and what is the protest proof process, and is WISP's 
coverage large enough to qualify an area as served?  And will gerrymandering 
allow a recipient to get around it?  Obviously, the National MAP, that 
documents all reported coverage from all carriers will help quite a bit. But 
I'm still concerned that many WISP's coverage will be to small of a take 
rate or area, to be proportional enough to mark an area as served.   I can 
tell you that in my rural markets, it would be near impossible to get over 
50% coverage, even if I served everyhome that I had coverage to.
Lets use a hypothetical example of the average member WISP having 1000 subs. 
There are not many areas that have less than 2000 potential subs.  I can 
tell you from community connect grant research, looking at census data, it 
was tough finding areas that gained maximum points of under 500 households.

Did it say anything in the rules, to define what an eligible size area is? 
Both for identifying served and unserved, not just USF qualification?

Wondering if NTIA/USDA is going to help identify preferred qualifying area 
on the broadband map?  I dont think it will be as simple as looking for 
blank spots.
IS there currently a map of ILEC coverage area of Voice, that can be 
overlaid to the broadband map?

A question likely to develop for WISPs is What are the safest places to 
invest in expanding coverage, meaning less likely to get overbuilt with 
subsidized competition?
The very Suburban/Urban and very Rural are becomming most likely for 
subsidee and harsh competition. Some where in the middle, such as barely 
rural, may be safer?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 At 11/21/2011 08:04 PM, you wrote:
Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say
ARRGGG!

  Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
  line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas

Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors
greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC
reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not
to much more..

 Note that this is incremental $775, a subsidy to add to their
 capital budget, not the total investment.  Of course big ILECs tend
 to be wasteful spenders.

  So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
  are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
  expansion.

yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a
network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build 
quick,
we'll pay

Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs

2011-11-21 Thread Tom DeReggi
Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say 
ARRGGG!

 Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per
 line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to unserved areas

Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors 
greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber.
WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC 
reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not 
to much more..

 So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers
 are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service
 expansion.

yeah, you gotta love help that says WISPs Go hurry up and build a 
network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build quick, 
we'll pay your competitor instead.
(Sarcasm)

 The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet,
 but it's presumably in 1H2012.

Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification. 
Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past.
The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now.  Those rules may 
not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it would 
be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report.  If WISPs had already 
reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and 
incentive in the new rules?

 Phase II starts in 2013.  For this, Price Cap Carriers will be
 offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in
 2012.  Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants
 to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a
 state or nothing) basis.

Thats the bad part Only a select few monopoly like companies can afford 
to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized.
So basically, the FCC is saying Time to force the Monopolies to serve 
ALL Americans, and leave no unserved areas left for the competitive 
property.
Rather than fix the problem, the FCC is trying to secure that the remaining 
25% of America will have subsidized competitors to private investment.
There is no longer a consideration for the best party to serve a specific 
area. Preferrence is given to the big boy.
no different than Auctions, where only the most fortunate and dominant 
player can win.
The biggest flaw in telecom policy is the concept of Serving everyone or no 
one. Its the founation for every monopoly cable franchise type agreement, 
and now being replicated into CAF. Forcing acceptance on a complete 
state-by-state basis in my opinion is a major loss for the industry. Because 
the mind set hasn't changed from old telecom. They are still thinking state 
regulation and utility electricity, where there is only ONE primary 
provider per state.

Although, I will admit, these funds are targeted to UNSERVED areas, so 
atleast they aren't giving the whole state away. Just the least desirable 
part of the state for wireline to serve.

They are saying. WISPs, if you can serve someone new this year, great, 
go for it, its your last chance, before we give the market to someone else.

 A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year
 for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard
 subsidy.  This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed
 wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies.  So
 this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs.

Yes, that may be good for WISPs.
Or, better positioned ILECs to become WISPs.

 So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP
 community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy
 more broadband via subsidies.

I fully agree with your conclusion.
Realistically, that could be considered a victory, for Rural WISPs.

With that said, I would have preferred the FCC to have the balls to name the 
new program what it really was...
They could have called it the CAIF - Connect America to ILECs fund.  or 
KCC-CAF - Kill Competiton and Choice, but Connect America Fund..

The interesting part will be to see how many RURAL ILECs will choose to 
accept $768 per sub, to build out to all remaining Americans in their state.
What else will be interesting will be to see if, the RBOC fund recipients 
really do what they are obligated to do afterwords.

I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaining American's some 
form of broadband, which outcome would likely be good, I just cant say I 
agree with the method.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred R. Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:02 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs


 On Friday, the FCC finally released the Order in their Intercarrier
 Compensation and Universal Service Fund docket.  The executive
 summary had come out with the Adoption at last month's FCC

Re: [WISPA] Customer Usage

2011-11-10 Thread Tom DeReggi
I believe Excessive usage should be calculated by considering the average use.  
Ignore the top 5% and lower 5% users, then add up all those in between and 
divide by the number of subs considered, and taht will give a good average.  If 
50G is the average, its OK if one guy does 75, if its matched by a guy that 
only does 25. Thats what over subscription and averaging is all about.

Then you need to calculate your total available capacity. Then you need to 
calculate your total cost to deliver that capacity.  Until you have those 
numbers, you dont really know what you should charge for averge usage. Is 
average usage above or below your cost to deliver, from a per GB point of view? 
How much growth in average use can you tolerate, and still be profitable? I'd 
suggest doubleing average usage, and start charging extra per GB, once it 
exceeds that value of doubling average use.   

But even then, that misses the boat. You really need to define how many subs 
you want to be able to serve per sector, and then calaculate the maximum 
tolerable average use able to be accommodated on your technology. What ever 
that number is, you then need to compare it to what your current average use is.

When I calculate cost, I pretend I have half the badnwdit h that I have. If its 
a 10mb sector, I consider it 5mb. That allows the business model to work during 
growth phase, understanding that you'll need to upgrade to handle demand before 
a network is saturated. And factoring that a network works less good when 
operating at peak capacity, so leaving your self some headroom.

I dont actually carge people pe GB, but the math is all the same, whether the 
choice is to charge more when it reaches a threshold versus bandwdith limit 
when a threashold has been reached.

Another approach is to compare it to the cost of a movie.  For example, if 
Comcast charges $5 for a movie, and an average movie is 5GB large, then charge 
$1 per GB.
Make it a financial deission for the customer to choose video over Internet 
versus Dish/Comcast, so it is strictly a decission of convenience.

My point is, its not a generic answer what to charge. It reall dpends what your 
capacity and costs are, which can vary drastically for many reasons.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy Trimmell 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer Usage


  If your #2 user is using 37GB then I'd call anything above 75GB excessive. 
Our biggest package is 60GB and then charge $1 per GB over with a maximum of a 
$250 monthly bill. So in theory they can have an unlimited package for $250 a 
month J We have a guy that consistently goes to about 120gb per month. He pays 
for a business package which is $100 a month and he sometimes goes over $10 a 
something.

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of David Hannum
  Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:37 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] Customer Usage

   

  What do you folks feel is excessive usage on your system?  And how do you 
deal with it?  Do you have bandwidth limits?  Where do you draw the line.  I 
have one residential sub  who month after month uses more bandwidth than the 
next 3-4 residential subs combined.  Last month, they used over 105GB.  Is this 
excessive?  The next top residential sub in the same month consumed 37GB (which 
in and of itself was 10GB higher than the next one).  

  With Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc, this may be the new normal . . .   

   

  Thoughts?

   

  Kind Regards,
  David Hannum

  New Era Broadband, LLC

   

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT sectors 120s, 90s, or 60s?

2011-11-02 Thread Tom DeReggi
My answer is... 60 deg.

Actually, if I had my way, I'd prefer under 45 deg.

Without detailed specs for the antennas, to understand what the product would 
be adding, its hard to suggest the market for each.
UBNT makes wonderful and affordable 90 and 120 deg antennas, and if someone 
wants 90 or 120, I dont see why anyone would buy anything different than the 
proven product already available.  (unless KP's antennas add something)..

What I can say is that there are not any 60 deg dual pol high quality sectors 
on the market today, and there is a need for such a product.

Admittedly, I tend to use 90 degs now. But I'd use more 60 deg, if they were 
available, even if it meant not gaining 360 deg coverage.
I believe a combination of 5.8 and 5.3/4 is needed in combination to gain 360 
coverage.  In Urban and heavilly saturated suburban environments 90-120 degree 
antennas are almost unusable, atleast not at high modulations.  The secret to a 
successful WISP is getting the highest modulations possible so they get the 
most capacity. And its better to have more capacity for limited coverage, than 
not enough capacity for full coverage, because with a more powerful offering, 
the take rate will be higher in the narrower coverage.

It is true, that today, with UBNT only certified in 5.8 MIMO,  60 deg antennas 
would not likely safely enable full 360 degree coverage in most cases, prior to 
sync, and maybe not even then with noise floors.  And as well, low density 
would warrant cost savings of fewer sectors. And obtaining 360deg is more 
important in low density areas.  I'm sure this is why 120 and 90s are more 
attractive to rural WISPs. But the needs are much different for noisy 
Suburban/Urban.  120-90 deg antennas are to risky to use in urban cases.  It 
should also be noted that spectrum reuse is sometimes possible, in Urban areas, 
mounted on opposite sides of penthouses, even without syncing, and often 10Mhz 
channels can be used to gain the coverage. Urban will choose 10Mhz, if they 
have a low colo cost, and can prove that higher modulation is achievable with 
less noise as a result of narrower sectors.

So the decission may come down to which market segment KP wants to target, 
rural versus urban. And if they want a unique product, or compete head to head 
with others that have 
equivellent products. 


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Shane MacDonald 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:58 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] UBNT sectors 120s, 90s, or 60s?




  We are trying to decide which degree Ubiquiti sectors to release in December.
  Our production line can handle two of the three for a mid December release 
date and want your feedback.
  The 120 degree version is pretty much a lock but we want your opinion between 
the 90s or 60s so we release the sectors you require.


  Please reply to the list or send me an email directly as your response will 
weigh heavily on our decision.


  Thanks,


  Shane MacDonald
  KP Performance Antennas
  Sales Marketing Manager
  sh...@kpperformance.ca
  www.kpperformance.ca
  Direct line  780-702-9977
  Fax 780-460-2786







   
 
   KP Performance Antennas 
is a proud sponsor of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association 
(WISPA) www.signup.wispa.org










--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/KP logo-4.jpg


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] EasyUBNT

2011-10-31 Thread Tom DeReggi
I have not looked at the link/app yet. But...

I wonder whether the value is as much abilty to access the UBNT remotely for 
maintenance? Such as formatted for Phone screen size.
Someone always carriers a phone, but not always a laptop.

For installation, I question whether the config feature is easier, having to 
type on small phone keyboards That gives me a head ache. 

But I surely see the benefit of alignment from a cell phone. I really hate it, 
when the laptop gets dropped over the edge of the roof :-(
One case of that would pay for the software for 10-15 cell phones.

Although many will argue, thats the point of the embedded LEDs. 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Luthman 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] EasyUBNT


  I see the stats and such but I don't see a difference between it and the web 
interface already there from an installer point of view.

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

  On Oct 30, 2011 6:24 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:

Watch the videos...it'll give you more.  I agree the price is
steep...but if it makes life easier on my 1 man crews, so be it.
Regards,

Chuck



On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
 $40 per phone?  That's insane.  All it does is put the information in
 application in place of using the browser.

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



 On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:
 Apparently Alignment and Configuration.  I'm not sure though, he just
 sent me the link.

 Regards,

 Chuck



 On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Josh Luthman
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
 Used for alignment?

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

 On Oct 30, 2011 5:33 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:

 One of my installers has been using this neat tool.  It's for the 
Droid.

 http://www.easyubnt.com

 Makes it easier on him for sure.

 Regards,

 Chuck
 ___
 Ubnt_users mailing list
 ubnt_us...@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users



 

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


 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 

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


 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



 

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


 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


WISPA Wants You

Re: [WISPA] Metro wifi for free in USA

2011-10-31 Thread Tom DeReggi
I'm not aware of any successful free Wifi project.
If there is one, success is defined by the eye of the beholder, and I'm 
sure the users have a different opinion (harder standard) than the the 
advocates who want to look good convincing the public it was successful. 
Bottom line Network engineering and ongoing support is expensive, in 
unlicensed where the environment can constantly change. Smart Radio self 
diagnose and auto repair functionality is not realistic, because a radio 
only knows how to take care of itself, not considering how it efffects other 
radios it interfers with (which could be the same provider's network). With 
no revenue, there is nothing to pay for maintenance. With no maintenance, 
users get frustrated, and there become few users. With few users, paying for 
it from alternate sources such as advertising dollars, doesn't work. Even 
subsidized free networks generally wont work because no one would have the 
incentive to really care to make the network work optimally always. 
Engineers make networks work, because if they dont, they loose the needed 
revenue and subscribers that puts food on the table. Take that dynamic away, 
and its a formula for failure.

Nothing is free. free wifi has generally only worked on the scale of an 
individual venue, where as the venue has an alternate source of revenue 
(such as hotel ), and the value add attract customers and higher rates for 
the alternate core business, and its justified for that venue to pay for the 
maintenance of the wifi.

The key is incentive. What incentive is there, for the WISP to operate and 
support their network well?

The other problem is scale. Wifi does not scale to the level that free wifi 
visionaries think. The more it is scaled the harder it is to make it work. 
Charging a fee is critical to reduce demand.  Free Wifi  was almost an 
acceptable idea when luxary Internet was under 200kbps. We live in a more 
capacity demanding world today. People forget about the little things 
like WIFI APs barely being able to handle 30 subs in ideal situations, 
because of ACK, hidden node, retransmissions, etc, regardless of the 
capacity used.
(unless more expensive true TDD systems are used).  it takes careful 
engineering on a link by link basic to scale and get the capacity out of 
wifi gear, and that isn't free.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Paolo Di Francesco paolo.difrance...@level7.it
To: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
Cc: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Metro wifi for free in USA


 Hi Josh

 thank you for your nice reply. :)

 I hope that also other WISPs will express an opinion about this topic.

 Regards,
 Paolo


 1)  Typically cities try, get bids and the company drops the idea.  It
 doesn't offer a good return on investment.
 2)  Yep, many many times
 3)  I would.  I'd lose customers and I'm paying for it to happen!
 4)  There are several success stories involving this, I don't have one 
 myself
 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373



 On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Paolo Di Francesco
 paolo.difrance...@level7.it  wrote:
 Dear All

 I am not from USA and I am very curious about free wifi access in the
 metro area in USA. I was wondering:

 1) is there any metro free wifi access (NY, LA, etc)
 2) I know some time ago some private effort has been done (I guess by
 google) but I also remember that those networks miserably failed
 3) would anybody of you complain (as member of your local community) if
 your local municipality would offer wifi free using your taxes? And
 would you complain as WISP if they would use your taxes to give wifi for
 free?
 4) do you see any business in giving 1 hour (or time limited) wifi for
 free to users in order to push them to buy more hours? What is the
 average amount in terms of hours per day of your customers on the 
 hotspots?

 Any information is really appreciated


 --


 Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

 Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

 Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

 C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
 Fax : +39-091-8772072
 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
 web: http://www.level7.it





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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




 -- 


 Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

 Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

 Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

 C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
 Fax : +39-091-8772072
 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
 web: http://www.level7

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

2011-10-31 Thread Tom DeReggi
At the end of the day it boils down to whether its justified for a WISP to 
risk going to court.
Admittedly, any government industry can cause a private company a lot of 
pain, if they want to, if you challenge them.
That is not something someone should consider doing, lightly.

With that said sometimes one must take a stand to defend their rights 
and what they believe in.
Even if not cost effective for their own good, if its for the good of their 
industry.

Just like BrandX, eventually someone had to step up to take it to trial, win 
or loose.
If a WISP was put in a position that they had to go to court, I bet that 
other third party groups would be willing to assist fund the battle behind 
the scenes.
I'm not talking just other WISPs. I'm talking about other big money 
companies that couldn't risk a netneutrality loss on the court record, 
documenting presidence.

My opinion is that it would not be wise for the federal enforcement 
agencies to target small organizations to challenge their rulemaking in 
court.
One, It would be a media/publicity nightmare.  Such as  FCC puts small 
business out of business.
Two, It would be embaressing, and make FCC look weak. Bully FCC picks on 
the little guy.
Three, Small WISPs would gain more sympathee from Juries than Big money 
Telcos.

In my opinion the FCC rule making is not legal. Atleast not for those that 
aren't telecom act defined regulated carriers.  And in my opinion, a WISP 
could simply refuse to comply, and demand that the FCC obtain a court order 
to back their claim of authority. If the FCC came knocking on my door to 
enforce an alledged NetNeutrality issue, I would fight it.

I think the disclosure portion is the one good part of the FCC rulemaking. 
For that reason, I plan to comply with the disclosure portion, just because 
it makes good sense to do it anyway. Not to mention it would be just plain 
stupid not to comply to such an easy request, which would be almost like 
requesting a challenge, not to cooperate on such an easy request.  Plus, 
not disclosing info could open up a WISP to legal issues covered by laws not 
related to NetNeutrality, such as truth in advertising. Disclosure should be 
vague, so not to self inciminate more than necessary.

But as far as complying to the other rules of NetNeutrality, I am going to 
operate my network the way I want to, and I'm not going to change that, 
unless I'm forced to.

Please note, in general I respect the FCC's authority, and my viewpoint 
stated herein is strictly relating to NetNeutrality.

Hopefully, I as well as other WISPs will operate their networks fairly, so 
this issue never has to come up. So many issues could be defended by 
reasonable network mangement, to defend oneself without the need for 
court.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Tony Iacopi t...@razzolink.com
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality


Hi there,

Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for
the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way
it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we
all do) you are suppose to comply.  I also agree that it is a flagrant
overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place.  Got to love
the Governments protection of the small business owner.

Thanks

Tony Iacopi


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:55 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: We hate the FCC) got the case
raises the odds even more.

LOL...have I mentioned how much I enjoy having you back on lists Fred?


Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:59 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote:

If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you.

As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality does
not apply to you. You paid for it, you can do what you want with it.

Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true.

The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common carriers
unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content.

However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be overturned by
a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal. In fact, I think the FCC
expected that to be the result when they wrote it. Politics is funny like
that. Congress and the states pass laws which they know will be overturned,
and the FCC follows their lead

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

2011-10-25 Thread Tom DeReggi
Let me give you an example of Firmware voodoo...

Noise detected for link was like nothing on numerous channels... Started 
with Firm 5.4.1 link acting weird. So downgraded to 5.3.3.
Rocket GPS on one side, Rocket on other. Couldn't downgrade lower, because 
Rocket-GPS wont allow it.
Embedded speed testshows... RCV 27mbps, TX 21mbps, SimutanousBoth TX 1.5mb, 
RCV 19mbps. Something wrong.
Link should be able to do full MCS7 Modulation, but only getting 39mb 
modulation (MCS4). Couldn't find any way to cure..
Upgrade to 5.4.1, and the throughput becomes symetrical. In a symetrical 
(simultaneous both) test, I get TX 15mbps, and RCV 15mbps.
Problem solved, to get even consistent throughput. (note: Airmax on, Airsync 
off).  Why only getting MCS4 undetermiend.

In this case, I'm theorizing the possible cause One side has a dual pol, 
and the second side has a single pole. Nrmally if this ever occured, we'd 
cap off the unused port on the single pol side, but in this case we did not. 
When we climbed we ran into a problem, where we could not get teh dual pol 
antenna up the tower, with the number of people and supllies we had on site 
at the time. Because isntall tiem was urgent, we decided to instead use a 
pre-installed antenna altready up the tower, but it was only single pol. 
Our plan was that we'd replace the Feed to Dual pol, in a few weeks, on the 
next climb.  We already had a cable waterproofed taped to the radio, since 
we pre-planned for Dual pol. But I did not have a cap handy.  So I left the 
second chain cable, hanging, and waterproof taped up, temporarilly. 
Unfortunately, with UBNT, there is no way to stop transmitting on the second 
chain. The cable end will spew noise at no polarity, since an antenna is not 
attached, thus there is no cross polarity isolation from the first chain.  I 
think what is happening is the TX signal from the unused secondary chain is 
self-interfering with the first chain, and because of this the lower SNR 
only allows the first chain to transmit at a max of MCS4.  This is my 
theory, but I wont know for sure, until we climb in a week to two.

But my point here is, which firmware made a huge difference in what results 
we could get, until fixed.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Stuart Pierce spie...@avolve.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput


 Have you tried to not use auto for ack and set the ack for 1.5
 times the distance ?

 -- Original Message --
 From: Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.net
 Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Date:  Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:38:39 -0500

I haven't deployed any Rocket PtP links with less than 55
 signal.

Have you followed UBNT's best practices guide?
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/Best%20Practices.pdf

Next step, hit up their forum or their support. Matt at UBNT
 worked some
magic on one of my links and it has been solid ever since.

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



On 10/24/2011 4:52 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:

 Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about
 30mbps.  My
 signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -
 85+).
 ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is
 approx
 1.5mi).  cable not an issue.  any thoughts?

 *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-
 boun...@wispa.org]
 *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi
 *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
 *To:* WISPA General List
 *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

 You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK
 distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third
 party
 factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant
 generate
 that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers.

 The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and
 see if the
 speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops
 proportionally. I
 bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better.

 Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not
 mean you
 have a clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port
 is limited
 to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to
 distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to
 PC,
 isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is very rare to find
 40Mhz of
 clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest
 packet loss
 and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

 - Original Message -

 *From:*Patrick D. Nix, Jr
 mailto:pni...@cnetworksolutions.com

 *To:*WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org

 *Sent:*Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM

 *Subject:*Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

 Problem is when I turn airmax on the speed really goes

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

2011-10-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK distances, 3) not 
optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third party factor effecting testing, such 
as testing devices that cant generate that much traffic or buffer sizes of 
routers.

The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and see if the speed 
tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops proportionally. I bet the 20Mhz 
channel will perform better.
Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not mean you have a 
clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port is limited to 100mb, and 
if there is cable quality issues such as due to distance, it could autoadjust 
to half duplex. Test laptop to PC, isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is 
very rare to find 40Mhz of clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the 
slightest packet loss and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput. 
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput


  Problem is when I turn airmax on the speed really goes in the toilet.  Best I 
can get is about 20mbps. According to ubiquiti airmax needs to be off up to 
15km links, anything over  that airmax needs to be on.  Do you have good 
success with short airmax ptp links?

   

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
  Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:45 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

   

  Turn AirMax on.

  Travis

  On 10/24/2011 1:36 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote: 

   

   

  What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is getting on a PtP ubnt 
connection?  We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5 mi, CCQ 97-98%, 40mhz channel 
width, airmax off.

   

  Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270.  Real TCP throughput via iperf radio to 
radio is 40-45mbps.

   

  Are there some config changes needed perhaps?






  
WISPA
 Wants You! Join 
today!http://signup.wispa.org/
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

2011-10-24 Thread Tom DeReggi
Can't rely on the noise level reading indicated on a live link's status screen. 
 (although we tend to put a lot of weight on the noise shown using the Spectrum 
Scanner over a period of time, paying attention to the peak value (blue line) 
). 
But even then, the results are shown as a single reading, and not individually 
for each polarity. What happens if one polarity is low noise and the other 
polarity has super high noise? 

For a noise free 2 mile ubiquiti link at 20Mhz, dual pol, we can actually get 
Iperf to push 70mbps. Although testing with devices/laptops attached tp ends of 
the radios.  So if you can only get 40mbps, something is wrong with the testing 
method or the link.

Heck, a 10mhz channel can push 35-40mbps with Iperf, at top modulation.. 
You could continue further by dropping down to 10Mhz, and seeing the rate of 
change. Also at 20Mhz, you have the flexibilty to change channels to make sure 
you aren't  centered on a bad channel.

What speed does the UBNT embedded speed test show? Note UBNT test is also based 
on TCP. On average our testing usally will see very simlar speed results 
comparing the UBNT built in test to Iperf. If UBNT test is also slow, you 
definately have a link issue. If UBNT test is much faster, then scrutinze your 
testing devices. Or play with Iperf to make sure its not the Iperf setting s 
you are using requiring tweaking.  Also, if using Iperf, try parallel streams, 
to see if you get a higher agregate throughput. That will tell you if it is a 
real capacity limit, or a TCP slow down issue due to quality.  It should be 
noted that the UBNT Rocket using it's embeeded test tool, can successfully 
perform a full speed test. I've tested up to 85mbps. So, to reduce variables, 
to trouble shoot a link problem, rely on the embedded test tool until such time 
that the embeeded tool can reach full speed. Once that is accomplished, you can 
scrutinize link quality further with Iperf.  The only need for Iperf is to test 
multi-hop to a non-UBNT end point, or parallel streams, to gather more data.   

We had an issue with Bullets not to long ago, where 5.3.3 firmware was super 
slow, but switching down to a 5.2 version solve the performance problem.
But that is not a Rocket. We've used later firmwares for Rockets fine, usually. 
  

When you push traffic does your modulation change frequently? or stay steady? 
Generally its good practice to leave radio set to a max mode equivllent to what 
it will stay at on average without downshifting.

if your link generally stays steady on a mode/modulation, and you are not 
getting throughput appropriate for that modulation, using the UBNT inbedded 
tests, its usually a timing thing, preventing the link from functioning 
optimally.  Manually stting the ACK time is one thing that is within your 
control to play with.  
When in doubt, if nothing makes sense, and you cant solve it, try changing 
firmware. Not only upgrade but downgrade. This has fixed our performance issues 
numerous times, even though a clear answer of why, was not determined.
  
What antennas are you using? Are they UBNT? If not, do they have a high enough 
port-to-port isolation? 

You also cant rule out multipath self interference, as with that you wont see 
noise if you aren't transmitting. You can try narrowing antenna beamwidth, if 
you aren't already.
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:52 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput


  Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about 30mbps.  My signal is 
at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -85+).  ACK is set auto with 
distance of 2 miles (actual distance is approx 1.5mi).  cable not an issue.  
any thoughts?

   

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
  Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput

   

  You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK distances, 3) 
not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third party factor effecting testing, 
such as testing devices that cant generate that much traffic or buffer sizes of 
routers.

   

  The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and see if the speed 
tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops proportionally. I bet the 20Mhz 
channel will perform better.

  Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not mean you have a 
clean channel for sure.  Also remember, the Eth port is limited to 100mb, and 
if there is cable quality issues such as due to distance, it could autoadjust 
to half duplex. Test laptop to PC, isolating RF path, just for grins.  It is 
very rare to find 40Mhz of clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the 
slightest packet loss and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput

[WISPA] Honolulu WISP?

2011-10-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
Looking for WISP serving Honolulu Hawaii. Please Email me offlist. 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Antenna Mounts

2011-10-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
Troy,

With Andrews dishes, you can get away with smaller diameter pipe than spec'd or 
other brands such as RadioWaves require. In several cases, This benefit was a 
primary factor that led us to bypass our standard product line, in favor of a 
radio brand that supported Anderws dishes, in order to meet a cosmetic, space, 
or mounting challenge requirement.

It should be noted that from an engineering point of view, mounting to a narrow 
tower leg (maybe 2-3, to a 4.5 diameter mast, to a dish, does not strengthen 
windloading, as you are still limited to the strength of the weakest link which 
is the connection to the narrower 2-3 tower leg, except because the antenna 
offsets further away, the leverage is greater, making the force at the narrower 
tower leg even worse.  I challenge antenna manufactuer's decission to 
standarize on 4.5 dia masts, but unfortuantely it is what they usually do.  
With that said

A common acceptable practice is to use a short 4.5 dia mast in between the 
tower and antenna, as described above.  I highly recommend using galvanized 
pipe. It can be found at Tessco or Special ordered from local metal/farming 
supply stores such as Standard Supply.  Avoid non-galvanized pipe if you can. 
 

It can be really expensive to ship 4.5 pole, which is why its a good idea to 
try and find a local supply store. Choices are limited for galvanized

We buy the pole to pole mounts from Valemount Microflect or Tessco.   Its 
important to buy strong pole to pole mounts, that have significant surface area 
on multiple points of the mast to prevent rotation. I will almost always use 
more than 2 mounts between the tower and the 4.5 mast.  Usually 3 will be 
fine, but sometimes I'll double it up to 4, if the antenna is heavilly offset 
to one side and resulting in mast tilt.  Do not just rely on the stablizer bar 
to prevent pivoting. Use good solid pole to pole mounts.  Valemounts store 
sitepro has a few models to choose from.

One type uses all-thread that passes through 4 v-shaped metal plates, secured 
with nuts. This gives the advantage to vary the offset distance between tower 
and mast.
This can be helpful to prevent antenna/mount parts from banging into the second 
pole, when aligning. I highly recommend using nothing smaller than 5/8 
all-thread.
Obviously this requires a two mount kit, one for top one for bottom. But 
doubling up each of the two mount points, increases a mount point from 2 to 4 
allthreads, preventing a square that is stronger against twisting/slanting, 
than just a single 

The antenna will lock down super tight on the 4.5 mast.  But you need to make 
sure the 4.5 pipe doesn't pivot on the tower. 

Usually the way it is installed is. The mast gets mounted to the tower 
first, with two mounts on the bottom fastened. Then the 4 ft dish is raised 
above the mount, and slid down onto the mast from the top. Then the top pole to 
pole mount can be installed. After that is done then the stablizer bar is 
installed.

If only mounting a 3 dish, if there is a 3 dia tower leg or wall mast, I'll 
usually mount the antenna direct to the tower leg or wall mast, without using a 
4.5 pole in between, its actually stronger that way, if its supportable or 
jimmy riggable to do that. I know the Andrews 3ft are.

With 4' dishes, its worth following spec and using the 4.5 mast.

Andrews sells the stabilizer bar kits as a standard part number.

With that said...All Trango brand 3 and 4 foot dishes all come with stablizer 
bars. If you ever get a chance to look at one, I suggest doing so. It 
demonstrates a good design, on how it accommmodates mounting to different 
positioned angles mount points. It probably could be replicated from hardware 
store parts.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Troy Settle 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:45 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Antenna Mounts


  Can anyone point me to a specific antenna mounting kit for 3 and 4' Andrew 
dishes?  I've been advised to mount both on a 4 pipe directly on the tower, 
but as this is my first construction project, I'm more than a little lost on 
the specifics.

   

  Of course the consultants and contractors on this project are being very 
vague with their answers, and about the only thing I've heard from the vendor, 
was a mention of stabilizer bars.

   

  Thanks,

   

  -Troy

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Adding External Batteries to a UPS

2011-10-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
We used these a lot in commercial building closets, because of their compact 
foot print, and excellent Power protection..
(Although never used the snmp card)

We've pulled almost all of them out to date. The reason we stopped using 
them is that like all other consumer UPSes, they tend to fail bad, when 
batteries die, and not restore power to the equipment until a site visit to 
remove UPS from service. (although we did like that it has a physical on/off 
switch, not just button, to force UPS on state).

Whats also a pain is that the internal batteries are NOT easilly removable. 
You have to take it apart in half, and hope not to short anything in the 
process, and prey the leads stay on when put back togeather.  (unless 
they've changed the cases, for better access, since)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com
To: WUG us...@wug.cc; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:12 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Adding External Batteries to a UPS


 Looking at this UPS.

 http://www.tripplite.com/en/products/model.cfm?txtModelID=3007

 It is small enough to fit in our standard outdoor enclosures.  It also
 supports being monitored by SNMP.  Problem is it does not have an
 external battery connector.  Has anyone had any luck adding external
 batteries to a UPS like this?


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Pulling my hair out

2011-10-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
At this point you dont know if

1) It was client traffic/usage or traffic type causing the problem. 
(streaming, DDOS, MAC level virus, etc)

2) Client Interference causing the problem. (For example hidden node)

3) Actually failing client hardware.

4) a Poor quality link, attempting to pass excessive traffic.

5) a software timing issue, or software config issue. (Is it running 802.11, 
or NStreme polling? A or N?  Is there anything unique about this CPE set up? 
Improper bridging config? IP conflict?Enryption or not? )

I would start out by testing the problem link individually, to determine if 
the individual link performs OK. (That could require taking off other subs, 
which is not easy.)
Maybe even ask the customer to unplug his Soho router or PC from the Outdoor 
radio's POE, so CPE radio is isolated from LAN traffic, and see if it causes 
any problems associated without customer's traffic. Then you can slow load 
up his CPE, to see at what points the sector starts to have issues.

Does the trouble CPE have a lower RSSI ? Could it be being effected by 
interference sooner, because of link strength? You are looking for whether 
this radio is sending an excessive amount of TX retries, monopolizing AP's 
time, starving the other CPEs? or if its interference, and all CPE start 
having retries, when the trouble CPE is added back.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:52 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Pulling my hair out


 Earlier this week one of the APs running 900MHz with SR9 in RB433s with
 RB133 and RB411 clients started dropping clients and they would come
 right back.  I tried different frequencies, etc.  Then it cleared up in
 the morning.  OK, maybe it is RTK or the weather or ...
 Happened again the next night night.  Replaced the AP electronics,
 antenna and 65' of LMR400.  Nothing I did seemed to make a bit of
 difference.  I did have a couple of clients that were actually off wrong
 sector, behind this one.  Changed them to the proper AP this morning.
 5:30 tonight 2 customers called within 2 minutes.  Both off the AP in
 question.  I looked.  None of the 14 clients would stay registered for
 more than 10 seconds.  Wildest registration table I have ever watched.
 Nothing seemed to make a difference.  I finally moved everyone to the
 access list and disabled them.  Enabled them one-by-one.  Found tow that
 would drop and come back and then apparently knock down everyone else.
 Left them disabled  and enabled all the others.  Let it run that way 1
 hour with no drops.  Enabled on of the 2 clients that was disabled.  It
 has now been up for over 52 minutes.
 Turn on the last one and all goes out to lunch.  Turn it off and
 everything is OK.
 Obviously that CPE has a problem.
 Two reasons for the post:
 1) Clients can cause the whole AP to misbehave.
 2) Anyone have any trouble shooting tips on how to know whether to
 check AP or clients first?

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



 Mikrotik Advanced Certified

 www.nwwnet.net
 (765) 855-1060
 (765) 439-4253
 (855) 231-6239




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Open Range Closes: Broadband's Solyndra @$240M???

2011-10-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
All I can say is That is one more potential HUGE competitor that is no 
longer going to be a threat to the small business WISP.
The jingle that keeps ringing in my head is, another one bites the dust, ah. 

What I ask is... Did RUS keep or get the Tax Payer's money back? Or did it get 
spent and lost?
 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Fred Goldstein 
  To: tsharp...@qorvus.com ; WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:01 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Range Closes: Broadband's Solyndra @$240M???


  At 10/5/2011 05:46 PM, Tom Sharples wrote:

Caution - this may make your ears bleed - strong language :-) 
  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM 


  Yeah, but under the rapper profanity, he displays a profound ignorance of 
macroeconomics and monetary policy.  There's a reason that economics is called 
the dismal science.  It is  not intuitively obvious, and is thus prone to 
demagoguery.

  Open Range, on the other hand, appears to be a simple case of JP Morgan's 
influence peddling to get a big loan for a risky venture from the Bush 
administration.  I wonder if they will end up losing their bet, or if there is 
some trick in there to get JP Morgan Chase paid back.  Note how Iridium was 
Motorola's idea, and lost several billion, but Motorola came out ahead (and 
Chase, being the marks that time, lost).



On 10/5/2011 2:21 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 

  At 10/5/2011 04:20 PM, Rafman® wrote:

Open Range Closes:

http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/10/05/open-range-closes/

Broadband's Solyndra with $240M Federal Funds..?

  Interesting, but not surprising given the whole story.

  The RUS (part of the USDA) usually just funds incumbent LECs, not WISPs.  
In 2008, Open Range got $100M from JP Morgan Chase and then a bigger RUS loan.  
The plan was to use Globalstar's ATC frequencies.  

  Globalstar was a low Earth orbit satellite (LEOsat) constallation 
launched in the late 1990s.  I think Qualcomm was originally behind it; the 
idea was to be a simple bent-pipe repeater for CDMA satphones.  They were 
competing with the uber-baroque Iridium network, which of course bombed 
miserably (I had a bit of an inside seat watching that failure; it was kind of 
funny). GlobalStar's original satellites kind of went haywire in 2007 and some 
of the replacements have been flaky too, which is not doing them a lot of good.

  Satellites were granted ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) rights as a 
way to fill in gaps in satellite coverage; later this was expanded to permit 
terrestrial-only users.  That's what LightSquared is trying to do.  Open Range 
made a deal to use GlobalStar's ATC, but something went wrong and the FCC 
revoked it in 2010.  So Open Range has some license problems.  All that money 
and no place to go.  They were also trying to make a deal with LightSquared, 
but I think that was for MVNO use of the network, not frequency leases.  

  I think the key difference between Open Range and your basic WISP is that 
Open Range wanted to play Wall Street's game:  Take a lot of money, spend big 
and fast, and hope for a return.  A WISPA member can't afford to waste money 
that way.  I wonder if Open Range has much cash left.  I don't see how they 
could have spent it without access to enough spectrum.

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


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



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas

2011-10-02 Thread Tom DeReggi
I sorta see it the opposite.
Unfortuntately, I wont be able to make it. I regretably, will miss seeing 
everyone.
But... I love Vegas, its a fabulous place, and a wonderful place for a show.  

In the past, I had a huge misconception about Vegas, that it was just about 
gambling and temptation.
It may be about that to some, but its so much more than just that. There is so 
much to do entertainment wise, something for everyone. 
Its full of many wonderful restaurants, to enjoy new culinary experiences.  And 
its actually quite affordable, if you know where to look.
I find that most WISPs and Vendors work to hard, it goes with the job. Its an 
excellent opportunity for WISPs to learn, and take a break, an take a few 
evenings well earned, to enjoy life.

I wish everyone going a wonderful time.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas


  I don't care for Vegas, but I can't wait to see everyone!

   

  Regards,

  Jeff
  ImageStream Sales Manager
  800-813-5123 x106


--

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
  Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 6:42 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas

   

  Who is excited?!

  If you haven't gotten your preparations ready, do them NOW!

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


--

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul

2011-09-30 Thread Tom DeReggi
Cost effective depends on your goals. 

Its nice to see products comming out like APEX9, enabling $6900/link pricing 
standard, which are fully feauture rich to latest standards.
366mbps is a lot of bandwdith for most people. 
And companies like Solectek offering discounts on their older generation model, 
that are still good upto 300mb, and had amazing even lower pricing.(note they 
also have new generatin products)
Those are all great examples of more cost effective.

However, I'd like to point out Trango BRoadband's latest models that support 
Compression and that they are awesome. The compression really works at less 
than 1ms, and I've seen anywhere from 1.5 to 4X capacity increase compressed, 
allthough spec sheets tend to advertise 2x to be conservative.  Its obviously 
more cost effective to buy 1 radio with Compression, than 2 radios without to 
get the same speed, if need more capacity than 1 radio can provide, or if you 
cant find another free channel or large channel.  What do you do if you wanted 
a 50mhz channel, but you only found a 30mhz one available in your freq 
coordination?  The answer is use a radio with compression. 

Whats most cost effective, is getting the best $ per mb, not necessarilly best 
$ per link, and knowing that each MB is a resource that can be resold for a 
higher reoccurring profit. More bandwdith equals more potential profit. 
  
You need to consider your site requirements, and labor involved. Its more cost 
effective, to put up an all-outdoor CAT5 Licensed radio unit, if replacing a 
pre-existing all-outdoor CAT5 5.8G link, being able to re-use preexisting 
cabling. Or if you are paying for colo space per months, its more cost 
effective to use a little POE indoors mounted to a wall, instead of a rack.  
You could easilly assess a $2000 cost savings on install labor and supplies 
selecting an all-outdoor unit instead of Split archetecture.

In the long run, you might find a split archetecture to be more cost effective, 
considering you only have to stock one model of Indoor Unit for all freqs and 
all sides of links, if the IDU was designed as a multi-band type.  
   
If you bought one brand of radio for every link, you might see a cost savings 
in NOC support labor and development, as software OS and training became 
standardized network wide.

I can tell you the first step is to define the need. Second step is defining 
what product will be most costeffect to solve that need.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Blake Covarrubias 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul


  We have quite a few Trango licensed radios. They work well. Latency is 
usually under 1ms for each hop.

  --
  Blake Covarrubias

  On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:16, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:


Most if not all of the licensed backhauls are very solid and very good.  I 
have a SAF link that is working well.

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



On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Marco Coelho coelh...@gmail.com wrote:

  Exalt has a nice product line.  How much bandwidth and how far are you 
trying to go are good places to start.

  mc


  On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:00 AM, John M. Nix 
j...@cnetworksolutions.com wrote:

We are thinking of changing our core backhaul from 5.8 Ghz to a 
Licensed solution.  Just wondering what the most cost effective solution would 
be without losing a great deal of quality. 



John Nix

CSWEB Support Team

www.csweb.net

918-235-0414

j...@cnetworksolutions.com









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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




  -- 
  Marco C. Coelho
  Argon Technologies Inc.
  POB 875
  Greenville, TX 75403-0875
  903-455-5036



  

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


  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







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

Re: [WISPA] LIGOWAVE PTP24-2

2011-09-30 Thread Tom DeReggi
The disadvantage of 5.8, is that you never know what you are gonna get until 
its up in the air, because you dont know the noise floor you'll see.

The advantage of millimenter wave (I consider 24Ghz millimeter wave) is that 
the beam width is extremely narrow, and few people use it because of the 
distance limit, and difficulty to mount stationary. As well, it only allows low 
power ptp for everyone using the band, so you never have some unexpected high 
power PTP link or wide beam PtMP showing up to cause you interference like in 
5.8G. So its often considered inteference-free, allthough it is possible to get 
interference. In general you can expect to get full radio speed. Millimeter 
wave can go far, out in the dry desert. But in high rain zones, it does not. I 
never recommend over 2 miles with 24Ghz and 2ft dishes in Mid East coast rain 
zones.  For 20km and high capacity, I'd still suggest Licensed, since licensed 
gear is getting more affordable every day, and there again, you get full radio 
speed, because you know the noise floor and link budget in advance.

With UBNT MIMO (dual pol) and 20Mhz channels, 5.8G, and a noise free channel, 
2ft dish, you can get as much as 80mbps HDX.
But I never count on more than 40mbps HDX, until after I know the noise floor 
for the link, considering typical noise floors I often see in my areas.
   
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bob Moldashel 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:47 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] LIGOWAVE PTP24-2


  Not on a 10 Mb channel and not in the 5.4 Ghz band.  The distance is too 
great.  If you go to 5.8 GHz. band you will need to use a 32 MHz. channel.

  -B-




  On 9/28/2011 1:30 PM, Julius Igugu wrote: 
Hi,

How does this perform under very noisy conditions/interference?

I have a UBNT Rocket M5 on a 20.3km link signal with 10MHz channel size is 
about -60dBm on both ends and can only do about 30Mbps one way.  Will the Exalt 
perform better?  I need at least 50Mbps full duplex.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Julius Igugu
Lightning Networks


On 9/27/2011 7:57 PM, Me wrote: 
  5.4 GHz has to be open.  Use an Exalt link on 5:4 and you can get up to 
440 aggregate with an 80/20 traffic split.  Much cheaper than a Ligowave W4 Ghz

  Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless


  -Original message-

From: Nick W lists-wi...@atomsplash.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 18:47:55 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [WISPA] LIGOWAVE PTP24-2



   


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
Best Regards.

Julius Igugu



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WDS compatibility between UBNT AP and MT CPE

2011-09-28 Thread Tom DeReggi
Also note... For compatibilty you  need to consider what freq talking about 
(for example 900 UBNT not compartible w/ MT 900) and MIMO versus legacy in 
discussing compatibilty. Typical UBNT MIMO APs w/ Airmax did not support other 
802.11a/N CPEs, until a recent firmware, in which need to ask UBNT for.  As 
well there may be some limits on which features are supported on each 
platform's WDS. For example, if WPA works with WDS.

But as far as just WDS, my understanding is that UBNT and MIKROTIK will work 
togeather.  Mikrotik's comparable modes are WDS AP and WDS-SLAVE and WDS 
Station.  Many Mikrotik Firmwares had issues with WDS Station, even between MT 
APs and MT CPEs. So important to use current Firmwares, where WDS Station works 
properly. I've found WDS-Station on MT ver 5 to work pretty reliably.

With UBNT, their WDS always seemed to work great no issues ever.

This is actually an important issue, because Mikrotik has much more flexible 
CPE options with their many multi port (ethernet and mpci) models.

If using WDS on Mikrotik, I highly recommend fast CPUs, expecially if running N 
modes. I've seen as much as 30% more CPU utilization with WDS, on slower CPUs.
When we used MT, we bridged with WDS almost everything. Use the 680mhz boards, 
not the 300mhz, when you can..

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Troy Settle 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:00 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] WDS compatibility between UBNT AP and MT CPE


  I have 0 experience with UBNT gear (other than their wireless cards), so I'm 
hoping someone here can provide some basic guidance.

   

  I'm looking at replacing MT access points (straight 802.11 w/WDS) to UBNT.  
Are there any WDS compatibility issues between MT clients and UBNT access 
points?

   

  Ultimately, we can do without WDS, but only if there's a suitable alternative 
for transparent bridging (I'm pretty sure MT's station-bridge mode does NOT 
work with non-MT access points).

   

  Thanks,

   

  -- 

Troy Settle, Network Administrator

The Wired Road Authority

1117 E. Stuart Dr.

Galax, VA 24333

(276) 238-0049 (office)

(276) 237-3890 (cell)

tset...@thewiredroad.net

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] DMCA Takedown

2011-09-26 Thread Tom DeReggi
Our new policy is to ignore it, and not respond. 99% of them are automated, so 
they dont even know if you didn't respond, and responding just creates evidence 
that maybe you are aware of a violation, and thus more on their radar to harass.

If we respond, we have a template response, that is basically Due to our 
privacy policy, we will only disclose information or take action in cases where 
an offical subpoena has been provided through a court order or valid law 
inforcement agency.  

If there is reason to suggest that we should disclose some information, such as 
that our upstream carrier is requiring us to make a response, we say something 
similar to... This IP is behind NAT, and We do not currently have a mechanism 
in place to determine the identity of the user of the IP.

With that said, we do investigate internally almost all requests. These 
requests are good to help give clue that a customer might have a Virus of some 
sort.
Many movie downloads are not intentional. We will almost always notify a 
downstreme user of the report.  We will almost always briefly look at traffic 
to determine if further action should be taken to investigate, to protect 
network performance.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Andy Trimmell 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:16 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] DMCA Takedown


  How do you all respond to these takedowns? Do we need to respond back to our 
provider with anything? We've just been passing the information onto the 
customer in jeopardy. Are we doing all of our part? Most of the time its kids 
downloading games. So we send the parents an email and phone call talking about 
the takedown request. Is that enough or should we be responding to the provider 
that we contacted the pesky kids that foiled everything?

   

  Thanks

   

  Andy Trimmell

  Network Administrator

  atrimm...@precisionds.com

  317.831.3000 ext 211

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT

2011-09-26 Thread Tom DeReggi
Now that you know what the MCS standard is, now you just need to figure out 
whether the manufacturer followed the standard.
There is no law that says they need to, and it could be considered a value 
add to improve on it.

A perfect example is the discussion I was having simultaneously in the 900 
thread.

Does the radio TX on both antenna polarities when in mode MCS 0-7?

One party stated they though selection MCS 0-7, disabled transmission on the 
second polarity.

According to the standard, it should transmit on both polarities in 
MCS0-7. Single Chain having the meaning of 1 data set.  Where in MCS0-7 the 
same data set would be transmitted accross both polarities creating two 
spacial streams of the same data, with an attempt to reduce error rate, but 
not increase speed, other than allow a higher modulation because less error 
rate.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Robert Canary rwcan...@mchn39.ocdirect.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT


 Thank you, that's the most (and the best) info I have gotten on the UBNT 
 from anyone.

 Could you explain what the MCS is, and why one would use it?

 Robert Canary
 OCDirect Electrical-Datacomm
 (866) 594-0786 Fax
 (270) 955-0362 Voice

 - Original Message -
 At 9/25/2011 02:23 PM, Robert Canary wrote:
 Keeping a link active versus maintaining throughput under divers
 conditions is two different things. For the money paid I would go
 with something like Alvarion.  But then again, after 12 years, I
 would not invest big dollars in CPE or Access points.  Only in the
 backhauls and infrastructures.
 
 The only reason I have not went UBNT, I have found much feed back on
 how they deal with interference, I like Frequency Hopper (FH) they
 keep a decent link through the most divers environments.  But how
 does UBNT deal with interference?

 UBNT uses chips that are essentially software-defined radios.  They
 implement the 802.11 G, A and N modulation.  G and A are a fairly
 simple OFDM.  -N is an OFDM with MIMO capability and some additional
 features.  FH and DS are both older spread spectrum techniques; OFDM
 is wideband, but not really spread spectrum.

 The N specs in particular (which work on both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands)
 include a lot of modulation options (MCS).  So you can select the
 modulation that works best on the link in question, and choose 5, 10,
 20 or 40 MHz channels.

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



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] UBNT

2011-09-26 Thread Tom DeReggi
Actually, let me be more clear

The Wikipedia chart lists the first 802.11N MCS0-32 modes standard.
The heading spacial streams is somewhat mislabeled, and really means data 
spacial streams, infering that additiaonl data streams can be enabled if 
they are spacially apart to allow it. But really that column is representing 
numberof unique data streams supported.

Modes 0-32 standard specifies  the number of data streams supported for 
each mode.  But no where does it reference the number of antennas that are 
specified or required to meet the standard. That I would assume would mean 
that it is left up to the manufacturer to deside.

Wikipedia was clear on how to define MIMO.  (A x B : C)

A=max number of TR antenna supported
B=max number if RCV antennas supported
C=max number of data streams supported.

2x2:1 would mean two antennas both that could transmit and receive, but only 
one data stream, so same data would go across both antennas.
2x2:2 would mean two antennas for tx and rcv, and supports maximum of 2 
different unique data streams, to double capacity.
1x1:1 would mean one antenna for tx and one for recv, and supports one data 
stream.

The key here is max. What is a radio capable of if it isn't configured to 
do the max?

UBNT Mimo supports 2x2:2 in its max configuration, which is enabled by 
choosing modes MCS 8-15. Thats a known fact.
But no where is it documented what happens when select MCS0-7.  Does UBNT 
become a 1x1:1,  2x2:1, 1x2:1, 2x1:1 radio?

Thats up to UBNT.  Technically the N standard doesn't care one way or the 
other. All that matters to the standard is how many unique data streams it 
needs to listen for, and allowed to transmit. Its irrelevent which antenna 
method gets utilized to get the signal there. To the radio it only 
distniguishes only the unique data streams. How many antennas used to send 
one data stream will change the received signal strength, but again the 
radio's mode doesn't care  or isn;t dependant on it because,  it is what it 
is that it hears, with the receiver antenna hearing everything that is in 
the air regardless of what transmitted it.  (That obviously changes in 4x4 
or 3x3 modes, since there are only two polarities available, and the 
additional streams must be achieved via some other spatial method other than 
polarity such as space or time spatial.

Anyway, thats why MIMO is confusing. Because there are many options left up 
to the manufacture, that rarely show up defined on spec sheets. And I find 
few manufacturer tech support people  know the answer when asked which all 
antenna modes are supported and configurable with their product.
They immediately jump to MCS-0-15 that specify only modulation and coding, 
not antenna selection.

Anotehr thing to note, MCS is not limited to 32, there are more. Atleast 64, 
maybe more modes. I beleive some of the higher modes add teh functionality 
for two chains to operate at different modes or modulations. I personally 
feel that functionality is one of the most important features for outdoor 
professional deployment of MIMO wireless, both to not waste spectrum 
(operate at highest reliable spectral efficiency per polarity at all times), 
and to reduce risk of using dual polarity (survive interference per 
polarity). For some reason the industry has not yet embraces that feature of 
the standard. It is more complex to consider the higher combinations of 
having mismatched modulation per polarity. Currently in mode 0-15, both 
chains must operate on the same modulation, if one chain switches 
modulation, so does the other.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense

2011-09-18 Thread Tom DeReggi
I personally think congress man should be paid more, so they are less likely to 
take bribes behind the scene, (or similar principle as bribes that might still 
be legal)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Cliff Leboeuf 
  To: FISPA Members List ; WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:28 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense


  Should members of Congress cut their salaries or raise the age at which they 
can draw a congressional pension when many Americans are making personal 
sacrifices during the country's prolonged economic crisis?


  A congressman makes $174,000 a year. However, that may not be enough for one 
freshman who said he's finding it hard to get by on his salary.


  Call/email your representative and make it know that this idea is worthy of 
passing.


  http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/16/congress.salary/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 




--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense

2011-09-18 Thread Tom DeReggi
To explain my mentality on that...

I believe most congressman are people with good intentions who want to do good 
for their state, and effect posititve change. Intentions are always good.  If 
they weren't they never would have got into politics in the first place.  Many 
have high ethical morals, to fight for the cause, and never consider selling 
out their beliefs.  Most people when they have a decent amount of money that 
affords them a fine basic life without to much compromise, its usually enough, 
for them to stay strong to their morals.  The issue comes when a congressman 
has to choose between his family and his constituents. Family will always be 
more important to a congressman that is also a mother or father. They want to 
provide for their family to the best of their abilty. They want to get their 
kids in a good college. Etc etc. What I've observed is that most corruption 
doesn't happen for millions or billions of dollars of profit for the guy that 
looked the other way.  Its usually a few thousand here or there of indirect 
benefits, that starts to add up. Saving a $1000 here or there helps. Sometimes, 
the corrupted person doesn't even realise they are being corrupt, it just 
sneaks up on them.  Maybe it was just pulling a strong to get a kid accpeted to 
a school. Or maybe a trip that gets doubled as a vacation. But I beleive that 
if a salary will cover every basic expense their familiy will want to have a 
good life, and the politician never has to consider, if I do this, how will it 
effect my familly, than it makes it a much easy decission for hte politician. 
Then it just becomes greed against morals. And most politicians, care more 
about public opinion and their status in a community, which is more valuable 
than a buck here or there.  When people get corrupt, its also often because 
they feel discruntled or that something is owed to them for their hard work, 
and never received what they deserved through the standard legal methods, for 
their hard work.

If making the laws for billions of people is not important enough to get a high 
salary what in the world possibly would be? I know self employed truck drivers 
without a high scool diploma that have made $150k per year. Shouldn't an 
untouchable uncorruptable highly educated and publically supported politician 
be able to do better? Why should a football player make millions and a 
politician that got elected by million only get middle class?  IF good educated 
men can make better money going into business or being another lawyer, why 
would they waste their time in congress? How do we get the best people into 
congress? Quite honestly, I beleive a congressman has earned their right to a 
better life, and their employer, (the government and taxpayer) should pay for 
it.

So much rides on the decission of a congressman. Billions of dollars are 
influenced daily. Whats a few extra thousand going to the decission maker, that 
upheld his morals to represent his constituents?

The problem with politicians is not their paycheck. The problem is their lack 
of understanding of the issues to make informed decissions. Or that they are on 
the take by big money lobbiest, and make the wrong decissions for the wrong 
reasons. How does one combat that? Not by attacking the congressman's paycheck. 
The answer is good solid clever lobbying that gains the congressman's 
symnpthee, and preys on his ability to execute sound judgement for the right 
reasons, the reasons he got into politics in the first place.

What I'm not against is putting a limit on how much money political parties can 
receive from a lobbiest or constituent. I'm all for reducing the paycheck to a 
party, and reducing the power of the big money lobbiest.  But not against 
legitimate salary pay to a congressman specifically. 

The American dream is that those that try harder go farther. Politicians have 
just as much of a right to be a beneficiary of the American Dream. And its 
should be shown to the public, so young kids will say to themselves, one day 
maybe I'll be a congressman, and make a difference, and provide for my family 
well, instead of what ever profession could make them the highest dollar. And 
I tell you, the average Harvard or Ivy League law school graduate's target 
career salary isn't typically under $170 per year.

We give politicians a hard time. But the truth is, its a demanding high paced 
job.  Heck, they'd have to pay me atleast $170k just for the requirement to 
wear that noose (tie) around my neck, and straight jacket (suit) throughout the 
hot summer months. 

Just my opinion.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Luthman 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense


  Because that's what people with money want, less money?

  I don't agree with that at all.

  Josh Luthman
  Office: 937

Re: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?

2011-08-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
All I can say is

1) With Contracts at $5 million dollars per state, and multiple states, 
Connected NAtions sure as heck should have skilled staff and reliable flexible 
methods, with that much money thown at it. No disrespect meant, just stating, 
thats a lot of money. 

2) Its good to hear that Connected Nation has taken such positive steps in 
their efforts on mapping.  
.   
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Spann, Chip 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:18 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?


  Connected Nation employs actual wireless engineers, most of whom have 25+ 
years of experience in EBS, BRS, WCS, AWS, LMDS, PCS and unlicensed wireless 
bands.  Most of us have also been WISPs ourselves and, to that end, we 
understand your business quite well.  Radio Mobile is one of the propagation 
modeling tools we use but we also have 5 licensed copies of EDX Signal and 
Signal Pro.  We have tested and used MapInfo, CelPlan, Splat and more than a 
dozen other wireless propagation modeling tools.

   

  Mr. Webster states that his methodology is easy to use and understand.  Some 
states have neither methodology nor staff for addressing fixed wireless.  
Perhaps our methodology is more complex yet, at the end of the day, state 
mapping agents are required to effectively deliver the same product to NTIA.  I 
head up the fixed wireless and mobile wireless user group at NTIA and have a 
published white paper explaining our rather long, but exceptionally detailed, 
methodology and would be happy to share it with this group upon request.

   

  Finally, some mapping agents (like our company) go beyond simply creating a 
theoretical propagation model - we do conduct static field tests and compile 
data at hundreds of points during drive tests.  Last year we drove over 100,000 
miles last year, spectrum analyzer and CPE in hand, conducting tests and using 
the data to refine our propagation models.

   

  However, nothing is as important than the relationship between the mapping 
agent and the WISP.  In the states where we are engaged, we spend a great deal 
of time talking to and working with the WISPs so that we have a keen 
understanding of their system BEFORE we create propagation models.

   

  Charles Chip Spann

  Director - Engineering  Technical Services

  Connected Nation

  (270) 799-0448

  csp...@connectednation.org

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

2011-07-21 Thread Tom DeReggi
In support of your points

On the news the other day, they pointed out a dituation where the city of Wash 
DC is having the cops harrass the Bicycle Taxis, and got Politions on the 
record saying that they are trying to find a way to regulate them.  The count 
is something like 50 total bucycle Taxi across the city. Isn't this a bit 
extreme and wasteful to go after a few bicycle riders? They literally work hard 
to give others enjoyment, a public good.  My point here is...  if the 
government can see it, they will try to regulate it.  Thats what governments 
do, they regulate things.  The government really needs to stop, they are 
sticking their nose into way to many businesses, taking regulation to a point 
of harrasment instead of a public good.  Its the whole thing about making 
regulation in search of a problem, instead of the proper way which is 
indentifying a clear problem and regulating to solve it. Or in my opinion, to 
get out of the way and let the free market solve it.  

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: MDK 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:57 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire


  Mark, you seem to think that what I'm advocating is a 'dream' or some kind of 
old fashioned fantasy.  To correct your mistake here, I must point out that the 
system you seem to want to continue has brought this nation to the brink of 
bankrtuptcy, destroyed our industrial and scientific base, our technology base 
has eroded, our information age has enabled our competitors now, and we're 
rapidly proceeding to a nation full of people who  feed each other at 
mcdonald's, mow each other's lawns, provide internet, and lend each other money 
- or, in terms of reality, a fantasy.  

  The history of our current telecom industry points to only one thing... 
Congress is wholesale inept at regulating business, services or industry.   We 
have 5 bazillion laws, all being targeted for efforts to gain advantage for 
this or that segment, or for this, or against that industry.  While we have 
played in the tide pools, away from the ocean sized breakers of Congressional 
and Federal controls, it has abundantly clear that what is going on is not 
sustainable, not good, not even faintly viable.   

  I am not advocating a fantasy... I am advocating a restoration of the PROPER 
governance our constitution provided and served us so incredibly well while we 
stuck to it.  And, has done such immense damage when we ignored it. 

  I am confused about why you think that WISPA and all other ISP organizations 
should not propose a clear philosophical message that FREE MARKETS WORK.  Duhh, 
we know they do, we compete as best we can, hobbled by the regulatory structure 
that grants others certain advantages, etc.  There's NOTHING wrong with the 
idea that Congress should set about undoing the sins of the last generations.  

  Furthermore, as someone said, WISPA itself should, just because it is an 
advocacy organization, have a clear and unambiguous philosophy on what the 
organization is going to advocate for, not just WHO it advocates for - and I 
recall the heated discussions on that topic.  


  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++





--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training

2011-07-17 Thread Tom DeReggi
HA HA HA

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training


 Hey PR was the star of the show! LOL!

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:35 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training

 yeah, that will be helpful if Slides are published on WISPA web site 
 somewhere.
 The slides had some useful links to FCC Knowledge base documents.
 I made the mistake of logging in at the last minute assuming gotomeeting 
 wouldn;t require any updates since I've used it before, but missed the 
 first half, as it took 20 minutes or so to finish all the softwre updates 
 before I could join. Next  time, I know to login 20 minutes early :-)

 Overall it was a nice educational session on 5.4G.

 Its always discouraging though, because it reminds us that most of the 
 gear many of us use and like to use would never get certified for 5.4 or 
 5,3 under the current software models.
 It was clarified that nothing prohibits software developers from using 
 their own software on certified hardware components, but reminds us that 
 that does not authorize the use of self software that does not follow the 
 rules. One rule being software cant have access to any driver setting that 
 could be changed to disable compliance, such as ability to change country 
 code.
 More or less indirectly making the use of Open Source illegal in its 
 current state, unless first compiled with options removed that allow 
 changing driver settings that could compromise compliance.

 Note that does not mean that Mikrotik/UBNT is illegal operating at 5.8G if 
 certified for 5.8Ghz use. But it means it wont be certified for 5.4G, 
 unless software is restricted further.

 One of the interesting points was that not only is it illegal to use a 
 higher gain antenna than ceertified with, but ALSO illegal to use a LOWER 
 gain antenna than certified with. This has to do with DFS certified by 
 minimim antenna gain.


 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message -
 From: Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) o...@odessaoffice.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Cc: Principal WISPA Member List w...@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:04 AM
 Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training


 Just wondering  How many are going to join the What's legal, what's
 not webinar today?

 marlon



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas

2011-07-17 Thread Tom DeReggi
 is just a reflector 
and positioned farther away from the feed receive element, apposed to the panel 
backplain that might interfact with the RF field because of proximity.

With OFDM MIMO the bigger concern is going to be colocation self interference 
with other antennas. So if mounting several antennas at a sight, you'll want an 
antenna with good Front to back and sharp cut-off on edges, with minimal side 
lobes as possible.   

To compare a [arabolic to PAnel, you'd need to look at the antenna patterns, 
not sure which is better fif the two are the same gain. (for example 26db 
parabolic versus 26db panel).


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jawad A Hai 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:24 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas


  Hello Josh,

  What antennas did you use? Flate Panel or Dish (MIMO), ?
  What is your Radio that goes with ARC ??
  did you get a chance to use other brands beside ARC ?

  http://en.jirous.com/antenna-5ghz/jrc-29-dx-pr
  http://www.lanbowan.com/products/en_vpro.asp?id=707



  From: Josh Luthman 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:20 PM
  To: WISPA General List 
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas


  I like ARC Wireless, been happy with them. Never heard of Lanbowan or Jirous.

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



  On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jawad A Hai ahja...@hotmail.com wrote:

Hello,

I have posted below in several forums without success, I will appreciate if 
you some body can advise me.

Hi,
This is my first post in the forum.( have posted in mikrotik and ddwrt 
without any luck )
I wanted to know what antennas users/Pros use for PtP needs.(Apart from 
UBNT)
Both Flat Panel and MiMO dish as well as Panel.
i was looking at different companies like Lanbowan, Jirous, ARCWireless.
Lanbowan has 27 dbi Flat Panel, which others are not offering.
ARC has got good reviews on mikrotik forum but jirous has got best port to 
port isolation(MIMO).
Can you all please share your thoughts on antennas. Cuz a good Radio is 
nothing without a good antenna.
My requirement is to have a good PtP links distance from 10-50 KMs range in 
very crowded environments.
I have been trying different brands with different results and its 
difficult to test the brands in live environments, just thinking to take an 
advise here on the forum and buy the same and test it. Its not about just one 
link or two, i needed some permanent vendor.

Thank YOu





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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire

2011-07-15 Thread Tom DeReggi
It should be noted that the today that we face is not neceesarilly an 
indication of a bad thing. It was just a fork in the road, and the big telco 
lobbiests reached the fork shortly before us.
What we have here is a chance to make a meaningful permanent change on 
spectrum policy.  A fast track that doesn;t come along often. Congress has 
that power.
But with every opportunity there also comes risk attached, and the risk is 
great if we are not at the top of our game.
This is NOT the time to be weak, it is the time that demands strength and 
persistence. This is where we say, we dont give up and aren't willing to go 
away, and we simply aren't going to let congress try to take our innovative 
drive away.

And where we have the courage and responsibilty to call it like we see it, 
and not accept when the FCC does wrong,  we also have the equal obligation 
to defend our FCC that we have intemently interacted with over the years.

When I testified on NetNEutrality for the republicans, ATT claimed to be for 
the NetNeutrality rules. The republicans, dragged out the truth that ATT did 
NOT like the rules, they just agreed that they were less harmful than the 
rules could have been, and they were willing to reduce risk, and except less 
harmful rules. The republicans were quick to use that to there advantage and 
argue that settling for less harmful should not be adequate testimony to 
contitute being in favor of, and that we should have rules that benefit us, 
not just that are less harmful, if we are to have successful broadband 
policy. I see no reason we cant use that same arguement against the House 
committee.

Right now, the majority bill is horrid. So we show more support for the 
minority companion bill that is less harmful.  Allthough we can agree and 
testify that the new minority bill is less harmful and preverable than the 
other, we can not loose focus that both bills are harmful in some capacity. 
We need to tell congress what we honestly really think, and we need a 
stronger stance.

A very very relevent point is that there has been an eight year public open 
process on whitespace where 3 administrations had been involved ans all 
concluded the value of unlicensed and allocation of Whitespace to unlicensed 
in significant capacity. For congress to undermine that would be undermining 
public opinion. There is proof, 8 years of FCC records showing that the 
FCC's decission represented the public interests. Congresss has an 
obligation to represent the public interest.

I would argue that the only evidence that we need to support our claim is 
submit FCC historical record as evidence.  In my opinion, ignoring that 
evidence in favor of big money lobbyiest, or to assist with poor federal 
budgeting,  would be corruption.

The bills are scary, but that does not mean we have to let them pass.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:03 AM
Subject: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire


 TO WISP's

 I'm not much of an alarmist and I would never claim the sky is falling
 unless I had positive proof.  Right now WISPA is faced with what I
 perceive as the most serious threat to our industry to date.  Some of
 you may complain that the FCC is an overreaching intruder into our
 business.  While Federal Government oversight and regulations into our
 rapidly growing industry may seem intrusive WISPA has always had their
 ear and we feel they listen and include us into much of their decision
 making process.  There is no doubt they truly want nation-wide service
 and recognize the lack of enthusiastic expansion by major players
 (legacy carriers) into the rural area which is our strongest argument.

 Starting with Net Neutrality we noticed that Congress was starting to
 politicize the work of the FCC.  Some of you thought that was a good
 thing since you felt the FCC was slow in releasing frequencies.  The
 micro-management of the FCC on that first issue has rapidly grown to
 full fledged taking over of the FCC's mission.  Once the legacy
 characters found that they could go around the FCC to Congress, where
 they already give millions in donations, they knew they had one big
 leg up on small budget organizations like WISPA.  They are now flexing
 their full lobbying muscle by getting some 'friends' in Congress to
 introduce bills that would freeze any future expansion of the WISP
 market locking us out of the lower frequencies that we need to penetrate
 vegetation and terrain.  Much like teaching the Internet to your parents
 other legislators look at the new laws with dazed amazement and just say
 OK not realizing the ramifications and listening to the lobbyist spin.

 WISPA is not sitting back on this one, last year our board was not
 afraid to go far out of budget to get our feet firmly in the door

Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training

2011-07-13 Thread Tom DeReggi
yeah, that will be helpful if Slides are published on WISPA web site 
somewhere.
The slides had some useful links to FCC Knowledge base documents.
I made the mistake of logging in at the last minute assuming gotomeeting 
wouldn;t require any updates since I've used it before, but missed the first 
half, as it took 20 minutes or so to finish all the softwre updates before I 
could join. Next  time, I know to login 20 minutes early :-)

Overall it was a nice educational session on 5.4G.

Its always discouraging though, because it reminds us that most of the gear 
many of us use and like to use would never get certified for 5.4 or 5,3 
under the current software models.
It was clarified that nothing prohibits software developers from using their 
own software on certified hardware components, but reminds us that that does 
not authorize the use of self software that does not follow the rules. One 
rule being software cant have access to any driver setting that could be 
changed to disable compliance, such as ability to change country code.
More or less indirectly making the use of Open Source illegal in its current 
state, unless first compiled with options removed that allow changing driver 
settings that could compromise compliance.

Note that does not mean that Mikrotik/UBNT is illegal operating at 5.8G if 
certified for 5.8Ghz use. But it means it wont be certified for 5.4G, unless 
software is restricted further.

One of the interesting points was that not only is it illegal to use a 
higher gain antenna than ceertified with, but ALSO illegal to use a LOWER 
gain antenna than certified with. This has to do with DFS certified by 
minimim antenna gain.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) o...@odessaoffice.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: Principal WISPA Member List w...@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:04 AM
Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training


 Just wondering  How many are going to join the What's legal, what's
 not webinar today?

 marlon



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] 100 Mb/S usable 1 mile distance Microwave needed

2011-07-11 Thread Tom DeReggi
The Solotek gear on promo will work well, but it maxes out at 128QAM, split 
archetecture, and I'm pretty sure is not adaptive modulation. So... You 
should engineer the reliabilty you need as fixed modulation.  But for only a 
100mbps link, that could be a perfect solution for you.

Also, Trango is offering good deals on older stock APEX models, now that 
they have their new line, if they still have stock. Worth a call.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Ralph ralphli...@bsrg.org
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:37 AM
Subject: [WISPA] 100 Mb/S usable 1 mile distance Microwave needed


I know that every so often Trango mails out something and so do others but 
I
 haven't seen anything lately.
 Anyone know is there is a great deal on anywhere for a licensed pair that
 will doo 100 Mb/S usable both ways for about a mile.
 It is for the City, so the license will be free.

 Ralph
 r...@brightlan.net




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

2011-07-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
Mikrotik OSPF can break older Quagga releases. (Imagestream can use Quagga)
For example,. I recently installed some RB1100s, and my Zebra .94 machines 
instantly went into route floods and restarts, and filling log files in a day.
I upgraded to Quagga .12 and all good now.  (note: Quagga current release is up 
to .18 now.

The week before I had an issue where three OSPF routers were on the same 
subnet. (mikrotik being the third) and Instantly made OSPF go haywire. Changed 
so two remote OSFPD servers were on their own IP block, and problem solved. 

Mikrotik often blaims Quagga for the bug. But then again, tings didn;t crash 
until the Mikrotik was injected.

I guess my point is... OSPF is more complicated than some people think. Its to 
be expected that different OSPF servers may react differently to certain 
network conditions. 
But almost always, there is a way to fix it, when one figures out the design 
flaw in the configuration, which often is a user issue, more than a 
manufacturer issue.

I like Quagga because there is a huge comunity behind it. Easier for me to 
support it. But so far my Mikrotik seems to be doing OSPF fine, now that all is 
configured properly.
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Kevin Sullivan 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 6:04 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP


  We've had trouble with Imagestream to Mikrotik OSPF. It seems to break itself 
every six months or so. Anyone else had to trouble with that?

  Kevin
- Original Message - 
From: Joe Fiero 
To: 'WISPA General List' 
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP


Imagestream has been very good to us as well.  Every bit the Cisco 
experience, but at a fraction of the cost.  Reliability has been excellent. 
They hum along year after year.

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Justin Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

 

I have used Imagestream routers in what I would consider 
carrier situations. Have had Imagestreams in VRRP running multiple BGP full 
feeds and Gigs of traffic per second.  Not saying it's a do all solution, but 
is a serious contender.  Add on top the fact you don't need $1000's of dollars 
a year for smartnet I am happy.  Not saying it's your solution, but definitely 
worth looking at.

 

Justin

-- 

Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net 
Aol  Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support

 

From: Bryan Fields br...@apacimports.com
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:05:10 -0400
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Cc: Roman consulttele...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

 

On 7/6/2011 10:52, Roman wrote: 

I would like to ask for help of wireless community. 

We have to choose supplier of core router for our WISP projects. I know 
technical characteristics and price for core routers from Cisco - 7200 and 7600 
series. Although these models have impressive possibilities, their price is 
very prohibitive for small/medium projects. Which models of core router do use 
in your projects? I would like to get your recommendations, its advantages and 
disadvantages. Would like to know some cheap and middle-price options.


It comes down to the feature set you need and the performance required.  
Can you share your expected traffic numbers and what features you want to run?

The cisco 7200 is a bit long in the tooth, the 7600 is the way to go 
forward.  Each can be found on the secondary market for cheap.  From a new 
device purchase decision, it's hard to beat the Juniper SRX series for smaller 
deployments.  a $1500 router can handle 300 mbit/s of IP/mpls and firewall in 
hardware is hard to beat.  The new MX series can handle 80gb/slot and its the 
next big competition to the 7600 from cisco.  Junos is amazing to work with 
compared to IOS too.

However if you do need multiple line rate 10gb/s interfaces, the ALU 
7750/7710 should be considered too.

I'd not consider the Imagestream product as it's not a serious carrier 
contender.  As of two years back they just did not have a product, and bowed 
out of an RFP I was forced into running.  It's a neat small office router, but 
that's all.  

Again this is all my opinion :)

-- 
Bryan Fields
APAC Imports LLC
Phone: 800-721-6502
Fax: 727-493-1511
http://apacimports.com

Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

2011-07-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
Jim,

Thats the way to make a sale. I dont see Cisco or Juniper offering that kind of 
quality support.

Roman,

If this is for you, and you are only needing less than 10- 300mbps of bandwidth 
for small to medium need,  do yourself a favor, and save your money, and save 
your time, and go buy a MIkrotik.
It will do everything you need, and let you spend your time on making sales, 
where you need to be spending your time. You will simply save loads and loads 
of money with Mikrotik.
And there really are some good support folk who are also on this list, that you 
can hire if you get in a bind.

If this is something that you are selling to someone else, then its a different 
story.  Its sorta like banks that have IBM PCs sitting on the lobby front desk, 
but in the back room out of sight, they got all PC clones doing all the heavy 
lifting. 

When selling to someone else, budget is not always the biggest concern, 
expecially when selling to Etnerprise customers. There are other issues like 
accountability, and hiring techs that might already be familiar with a 
platform. For example ever john Doe out of computer school likely has had Cisco 
training.  Often your buyers also will be people who have had that Cisco 
training, and looking for name brand. 
Juniper is an alternate choice for Cisco. The kind of people that buy Junipoer 
and Cisco are never going to be interested in a Vyatta, Mikrotik, or 
ImageStream. Its to risky for them leaving the name brand.

But most smaller businesses are going to be fine with what ever you recommend, 
and Image stream and Mikrotlk both have wonderful solutions for small business.

I personally, use our own distro of Linux. The reason is I already put in my 
time learning how to do it on Linux by hand, and can. My custom solution costs 
me about $1200-1500 in hardware for the latest XEON 5520 platform, and can push 
almost 10Gb.  I dont recomend that to others, unless they have the staff that 
is already knolwedageable with Linux and common ISP open source applications.

If you are pushing multiple gigs, then you've likely grown the complexity of 
what you do as a provider, and to select the best product, you really need to 
have a better idea on your network design goals.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jim Patient 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP


  Roman,

   

  If you would like to give me a call, I will set you up a read only account on 
a live running Powerouter 732 and give you a quick tour of Mikrotik RouterOS.  
This router is running IPv6 and BGP with multiple peers on the WAN and OSPF on 
the LAN side.  It also has a pretty extensive firewall and quite a few 
bandwidth queues, tunnels, etc.  This router has been in service over 4 years 
now.

   

   

  Jim Patient

  Link Technologies, Inc.

  314-735-0270 ext. 102

  www.linktechs.net or

  http://ipv6.linktechs.net/


   

   

   

   

   

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Roman
  Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:01 PM
  To: wireless@wispa.org
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

   

  What I would like to get at this stage is not actual configuration for 
one-time project. I need some rule-of-thumb in order to apply it for all of 
my projects to get budget calculation. 

  For example, for projects with not more than 200 subscribers and 10 Mbps 
backhaul you advise to use configuration Small. Then, for projects with up to 
1000 subscribers and 100 Mbps backhaul, you advise to use configuration 
Medium. For every type of configuration I would like to know its technical 
characteristics and price.

   

  Thank you in advance!


--

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3747 - Release Date: 07/06/11



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/image001.png


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP

2011-07-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
To clarify.

1)  Linux routers are plenty good for Enterprise. My point was that its a 
harder sell to sell them a product they dont know, when there could be many 
third party trusted advisors chiming in with an opinion that contradicts yours. 
But no doubt Linux routers can be very power and very stable.


2) I dont like to get into the Imagestream vs Mikrotik war, as they are both 
very nice products. One difference is the Mikrotik is a closed platform, and 
Imagestream is an open platform with manufacturer support.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

2011-06-08 Thread Tom DeReggi
From NPRM...

whether we should allow 50 megahertz channels in the 13 GHz band for FS, BAS, 
and 
 CARS in order to allow systems to use wider channels to obtain higher data 
 rates.

(Originally debating whether 25Mhz or 28Mhz channels, and recognizing that 
25Mhz channels made more sense spectrally, but no equipment available that did 
25Mhz).

The answer is YES, please allow 50Mhz channels !!!

Most major pre-existing manufacturers make popular gear that supports 50Mhz 
channel size, and could be easilly modified to accommodate 6 - 13 Ghz.

Due to market rate cost of roof colocation and fiber, and consumer trends 
demanding faster broadband, WISPs need Higher capacity backhaul links to reach 
longer distances.
50Mhz offers speeds up to 366mhz, desperately needed, and is more efficient 
than 25Mhz, because of better ratio of channel's bandwidth used for payload 
versus management protocol overhead, since protocol overhead bandwdith 
requirement is fixed near the same regardless of the size of the payload 
capacity.  

I'm predicting that much of the work will be on reply comments. If pre-existing 
licensee (broadcasters, cable cos) protest the use of band for specific 
reasons, for us to counter such claims as false, and how we can get around 
their concerns. 

 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Rick Harnish 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:19 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz


Released:  06/07/2011.  WIRELESS BACKHAUL:  FURTHER INQUIRY INTO FIXED 
SERVICE SHARING OF THE 6875-7125 MHZ AND 12700-13200 MHZ BANDS. (DA No.

  11-1011). (Dkt No 10-153 ).  WTB

  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.doc

  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.doc

  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.pdf

  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.pdf

  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.txt

  http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.txt

   

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
  Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:11 AM
  To: WISPA General List; motor...@afmug.com
  Subject: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz

   

  Anyone has the link for the latest news on this?

   

  Gino A. Villarini

  g...@aeronetpr.com

  Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

  787.273.4143



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC not listening to us

2011-06-04 Thread Tom DeReggi
Thanks for sharing the arcticle and point of view.

I personally would side with the conclusion of the author, which is one 
reason I supported congress's protest to overturn the FCC's netneutrality 
work.
However, there are trade offs with anything.

The first battle might have been to stop the FCC wrong doing, but if that is 
won, there becomes a second harder battle of how do you stop the entity 
that takes over (congress) from doing worse harm?. Note, Cogress can do 
harm via legal methods, where they might not be bound by the same openess 
laws as the FCC officials.

An example, I can use is the last FCC administration that favored TV 
Whitespace for Unlicensed, where the new and future FCC or even congress 
might  possibly favor Mobile carriers use of TV Whitespace.

We sometimes forget what sparks change. The predicessor lost public support 
to the extend that it was worth the risk to try change. Votes were made 
based on what they previously didn't like, instead of viewpoints they liked 
from future candidates.

This is not as simple as democrat versus republican thing, because both 
parties have forces that work against us and for us.

I've always been a supporter of less government. But we also sometimes 
forget, that there is another force called big business that can be a 
threat to the average business. Sometimes the only entity large enough and 
capable to help combat big business is government, unless small business is 
clever enough to play politics and turn one big business against another big 
business, to have them do the work for us, to encourage a lesser harm end 
result.

My point here is... its a catch-22 no matter what we do. For example, 
supporting policy makers that combat socialistic policy, would likely at the 
same time support policy makers that increase support for big business. 
Winning one could means losing the other.

In my testimony, I wrote, stay out of our business, its not yours.. But 
realistically, that will never occur as long as there are lobbyist calling 
on the government to deal with issues of our industry, and we dont have the 
ability to stop our competitors from doing that. Its not as simple as 
saying, dont regulate us. Because even if we are not regulated by the FCC, 
powers in charge still make laws that will effect our industry from another 
angle, by making laws and programs that prefer our competitors that might be 
regulated.

In conclusion, my opinion is we need to stop complaining about our 
government leaders in place, and instead, start looking for the leaders to 
take their place that will be better apt to give us the support and ideology 
that what we need. Or we need to continue to educate and influence our 
prospective leaders to be able to better support us. So far, I haven't seen 
anyone that clearly would give us everything we need. Unless we identify and 
hand pick those potential leaders, more change will just lead to more of the 
same.

I will concur that less government and regulation is better, all things 
considered and simplified.

But the irony here is... in order to accomplish that, we are going to have 
to turn to our government politicians to gain their support and get them 
involved to implement that plan of lesser government.

One of the things I have always said is that our issues would go to congress 
sooner than later. And that is happening now, congress is getting involved.
This could be a good or bad thing depending on the outcome of their 
involvement. There is no time better than now to be active in government 
lobbying for the Internet industry.

The truth is... there are good people in congress, and involved on the 
commerce committee. But the problem is our opponents' lobbying forces at the 
congressional level are stronger than ever. Its a lot of work to lobby 600 
house and senate law makers.

I've always been one to want drive a strong clear stance. But in my later 
years, I'm starting to learn that sometimes being realistic, which might 
result in compromising on a stance, has a better chance to lead to some 
level of possitive change.  From what I've seen, that has always been what 
politics has been about.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: MDK rea...@muddyfrogwater.us
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 9:08 PM
Subject: [WISPA] FCC not listening to us


 Take what you read here with a grain of salt, the quality of articles is
 variable.   However,  that at some level, the hearings were a sham, is not
 to be disputed.

 When partisans, who are motivated to implement political ideology, over
 stewardship of public assets, are appointed to office... this is what you
 get.   Everyone keeps accusing me of being political and I keep trying to
 tell you all that THEY are the ones who are bringing politics into your 
 and
 my business, often partisan or ideologically radical politics, at that.

 http

Re: [WISPA] FW: WISPA Bylaws

2011-05-31 Thread Tom DeReggi
Not to make suggestions after the fact but

In the past, it was realized that flexibilty was lost in setting appropriate 
dues because there were only a limited number of classes (assoc, principal, 
vendor).

It would make sense to also add to the bylaws and ballot, the ability for the 
board to set additional classes of membership.

The reason for this is... the majority class is currently principle. 
Currently if the member prospect does not qualify for principle the 
alternative becomes the lower revenue associate class even if the prospect 
was a candidate appropriate to pay a higher rate. A class could be used to 
advertise specific companies as higher contributors, such as a Gold and Platnum 
principle member (a WISP that is larger or desired to donate more cash in 
excahnge for good will).  As well additional classes could be used to allow a 
membership without certain privilages that other WISPs might have. For example 
which Lists they have access to. (An example of that might have been the WCA 
3650 issue, where a telco might want to join to work on a specific project, but 
may not qualify as a typical WISP). Adding Classes, enables the ability to 
target alternate revenue streams, other than to raise principle member's dues, 
and without compromising principle member's voting power and association focus. 
 Alternatively, it would work to give the ability to add sub-classes, that 
allowed fine tuning of rights or dues per that specific sub-class.  For 
example, manufacturer versus service provider versus investor. Or WISPs under 
500sub, 500-5000, and Large National providers  5000.  Or Associate of 
government versus non-profit versus consultant, versus press, versus newbie 
exploring wireless.

I'm not suggesting defing classes now, just suggesting board given the ability 
to add classes, if needed in the future.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Victoria 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 11:35 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] FW: WISPA Bylaws


  Dear Members,

   

  This election, you are going to be presented with proposed changes in the 
WISPA Bylaws.  Rick has posted these changes: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=4752

  Please take a moment and be familiar with them.  

   

  If you have any questions, please email to: wispabyl...@wispa.org

   

  Thanks and have a great Memorial Day!

   

  Best regards,

  Victoria Proffer 

  President/CEO

  St. Louis Broadband, LLC

  314-974-5600

   

   2010 - 2011 Board of Directors

  Committee Chairs - Bylaws | National Disaster | State Coordinators |Missouri 
State Coordinator

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/image001.gif


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 2.4GHz 802.11n hardware that will do 40MHz and 20MHzchannels simultaneously?

2011-05-23 Thread Tom DeReggi
I had started using UBNT instead of Mikrotik for my MIMO installs because 
for me, the UBNT gear seemed to work more consistently with less agrevation 
in noisy environments.

However... Mikrotik appears to do a better job following 802.11n 
specification. It handles 40Mhz to 20Mhz coexistence properly.
If you set the MT AP to 40Mhz, and set the CPE to 20Mhz, it will connect at 
20Mhz.
Basically, the MT AP will try 40Mhz first, and when it doesn't function it 
drops to the primary 20Mhz channel for the CPE.
It sets the first 20Mhz as the constant base channel. And then MT has a 
configuration to state whether the second 20Mhz portion will be above or 
below the primary base. This is useful because you can set the primary base 
20Mhz channel to be the channel that is most reliable, to guarantee the base 
channel is as reliable as possible, and still have the ability to select 
above or below it for the next best.

With this said... I can not comment on interoperabilty with non-Mikrotik 
gear, nor can I comment on how well the adaptation between 40 and 20 will 
occur regarding quality, latency or effect on TCP for the traffic passing..

When using Mikrotik I usually recommend restricting the number of Mode 
possibilities, so that only the modes that work well are available. Other 
wise the radios spend to much time trying the many variations of modes that 
might not work well. For example, when interference occurs, does it drop a 
chain (polarity) or downshift to 20Mhz?

Also you'll notice in Mikrotik that you select both the rates it supports 
and advertises that it supports. This might help with interoperability.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:22 AM
Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz 802.11n hardware that will do 40MHz and 
20MHzchannels simultaneously?


I asked this on the UBNT forum but received no answer.

 The 802.11n specification states that when an AP is set to 40MHz channels 
 it should allow older gear that's only capable of 20MHz channels to 
 connect in that mode as well.

 With 2.4GHz UBNT gear I'm finding that if the AP is set to 40MHz then 
 that's all it will allow clients to connect at - clients that are not 
 capable of 40MHz channels just don't connect. Apple gear and some others 
 won't do 40MHz in the 2.4GHz band.

 Does anyone know if there's any cards that could be used the MT 
 routerboards that could do both 40MHz and 20MHz channels simultaneously?

 Thanks!
 Greg


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] Staff Apparel

2011-05-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
OK, Lets look at this from a different angle Durability.

I've never been a fan of brand name, until Ralph Lauren Polo brand Polo 
shirts. They might cost two three four times as much, but they last longer than 
any other brand polo style shirt I've ever bought, years compared to months. 
Even high end department store brands are lucky to make it longer than 1 or 2 
towerclimbs before they look like they are on their last leg, with snags. And 
if the tower doesn't kill it, surely the Coffee Mug spill on the drive in will, 
or the mustard stain from lunch on the run will. 

So, how is the quality durablity of the shirts, from the online stores you 
members are recommending?

Any hints on the type (specifications) shirt that will last in the field for 
the working man WISP?

With that said... I had gotton some polo shirts made by Anvil which were 100% 
cotton for $8 each, and they seemed just as durable as any other brand I 
bought, (other than RL Polo). (google search for Anvil can find sellers of).  I 
figured if I wasn't going to find top quality, I'd go quantity, and at $8 a 
peice, so what if I had to replace them after a few weeks in the field.  (I had 
my neighbor embroider them who had a busienss doing that.  ).


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Forrest Christian 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Staff Apparel


  Cabelas evidentally does this also, although I haven't tried it out yet... 
http://corporateoutfitter.cabelas.com

  On 5/18/2011 7:03 PM, RickG wrote: 
www.queensboro.com


On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Chuck Hogg ch...@shelbybb.com wrote:

  Cintas works for us.  Shirts are inepensive and logo is only $4 per
  shirt and a $50 setup fee.  Shirt prices range from $9-$50.

  Regards,

  Chuck




  On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM,  ralphli...@bsrg.org wrote:
   That is what we do, as well
  
  
   
   From: Cameron Crum [mailto:cc...@wispmon.com]
   To: WISPA General List [mailto:wireless@wispa.org]
   Sent: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:09:31 -0400
   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Staff Apparel
  
   Or go buy all the shirts and take them to an embroidery place. I got a 
bunch
   of the same brand/style in the sizes and colors I needed at Costco and 
had
   one of my customers who had an amazing computer controlled embroidery
   machine put our logo on them. They turned out great!
  
   Cameron
  
   On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:05 PM, David E. Smith d...@mvn.net wrote:
  
   On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 13:54, Steve Barnes st...@pcswin.com wrote:
  
   I have found this to be an issue.  All the retail shops want to do a 
min
   or 12 like shirts.  Basically I have 4 staff that are everywhere from 
size
   small to 4X with me doing different names and different colors and 
different
   sizes I doubt that I have more than 2 shirts the same.
  
  
   You'll probably have better luck finding a small local outfit to do 
this,
   precisely because the big companies usually have large minimum orders.
   If you do want to do it all online, try customink.com. Can't vouch for
   their embroidery, but I've ordered hundreds of screen-printed T-shirts
   through them with no problems. Their Web site they have a minimum 
embroidery
   order of just 6 shirts, and you can mix-and-match.
   David Smith
   MVN.net
  
  
  
  
   

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

  
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  
  
  
  
  
   

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

  
   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
  
   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
  
   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  


  

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


  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org

Re: [WISPA] Licensed vs Unlicensed / Carrier-class vs not

2011-05-20 Thread Tom DeReggi
Speed/Capacity.  But depends what freq License you are talking about.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Troy Settle 
  To: wireless@wispa.org 
  Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:44 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Licensed vs Unlicensed / Carrier-class vs not


   

  Other than making some guy in a suit feel good and being safer from 
interference, what advantages are there to running a so-called carrier class 
system using a licensed frequency?

   

   

  -- 

Troy Settle, Network Administrator

The Wired Road Authority

1117 E. Stuart Dr.

Galax, VA 24333

(276) 238-0049 (office)

(276) 237-3890 (cell)

tset...@thewiredroad.net

   



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Channel Size

2011-05-19 Thread Tom DeReggi
There is not a limit to the number of 11Ghz channel licenses that a WISP can 
buy for a path.
Its just that 40Mhz is the max for the channel.
If you want double the speed (equivellent of 80Mhz), you buy two radios and 
buy two 40Mhz channel licenses.
Let your switches or routers balance it.

This is a bit less efficient though than one big channel, because you have 
to replicate protocol overhead twice.
You can see this comparing that speed increase going from 40 to 50Mhz 
channel is significantly greater than the speed increase jump going from 
30mhz to 40Mhz.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:40 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 11Ghz Channel Size


 Right now on 11Ghz your max channel size is 40Mhz.  Is the FCC looking
 at allowing the bonding of two channels into an 80Mhz channel?  I
 think this can be done in 18Ghz.


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] [WISPAOLD] Licensed 11ghz Hops

2011-05-14 Thread Tom DeReggi
Yes, 40Mhz is the maximum width allowed for a 11Ghz channel and license.

However, you can buy two licenses and bond two channels, using two radios..

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Scott Carullo 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:27 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPAOLD] Licensed 11ghz Hops


  Below is part of a conversation from last November.  Josh mentions the SAF 
Lumina using 50Mhz channels for 325Mb FDX.  For FCC in the US 40Mhz channel is 
the largest that can be used right?  Just want to verify my understanding and 
make sure there isn't a way to do this in the US



  Thanks


  Scott Carullo

  Technical Operations

  855-FLSPEED x102









--
  From: Brad Belton b...@belwave.com

  Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:10 PM

  To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org

  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops




  You coordinate two paths.  We have a Trango GigaLINK 6GHz link using two 
radio pairs and a combiner plate attaching to one antenna on each end.  One 
radio set is V the other is H.  Gives us twice the capacity (165MB x 2) plus 
failover in the event one ODU or IDU fails plus Frequency diversity for higher 
overall availability.



  Best,



  Brad



  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Josh Luthman

  Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:07 PM

  To: WISPA General List

  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops



  Not sure where dual polarities come in to play with licensed gear.  I know 
that your PCN strictly states V or H.



  The SAF CFIP Lumina uses 50Mhz one way and 50Mhz the other way to get full 
duplex.  Each channel with 256qam does 325mbps.



  Josh Luthman

  Office: 937-552-2340

  Direct: 937-552-2343

  1100 Wayne St

  Suite 1337

  Troy, OH 45373





  On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:

  How long has Exalt been doing licensed gear?  Is it pretty good gear?

  Does SAF allow you to use a dual polarity dish in 11ghz and bond both

  polarities for additional bandwidth?  Can both polarities be done on

  the same channel?




  


  WISPA Wants You! Join today!

  http://signup.wispa.org/

  




  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org



  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:

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



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








--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 Question

2011-05-13 Thread Tom DeReggi
Is it the latest firmware?
Is radio operating in 5.8 or 5.4 freqs?
If 5.4, 5.3, max configurable power is 2db for ext, or 6db for panel.

If reboot the AP and SU, does the error message go away (atleast for a 
while)?
Could be SNMP daemon crashing or running out of resources.

Are you doing any SNMP communication to the radios, to make periodic 
configs, such as set power?
If so, using latest Trango MIBs?
If not, are your radios on public or private IPs, and if you block SNMP to 
radio in firewall, does the error stop occuring?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 6:45 PM
Subject: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 Question


 Does anyone here know what the follow errors really mean, what the
 impact may be on the link and how to fix them:
  54 1:01:59:09.752 1467 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  55 1:02:03:32.741 1471 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  56 1:02:04:48.134 1474 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  57 1:02:04:56.112 1476 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  58 1:02:32:32.393 1479 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  59 1:02:32:45.584 1481 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  60 1:02:38:05.269 1488 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  61 1:02:38:19.337 1490 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  62 1:02:44:09.348 1497 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  63 1:02:44:09.348 1498 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  64 1:02:45:44.269 1502 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  65 1:03:07:16.213 1513 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  66 1:03:07:31.213 1514 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  67 1:03:07:31.213 1515 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  68 1:03:09:01.337 1519 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  69 1:03:31:09.168 1530 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  70 1:03:31:20.224 1532 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  71 1:03:47:30.033 1539 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  72 1:03:47:45.033 1540 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout
  73 1:03:47:45.033 1541 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16
  74 1:03:49:15.292 1545 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted
 power 16

 There are matching errors on the MU as well.

 -- 
 Scott Reed
 Owner
 NewWays Networking, LLC
 Wireless Networking
 Network Design, Installation and Administration
 Mikrotik Advanced Certified
 www.nwwnet.net
 (765) 855-1060




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] FCC477 fines?

2011-05-13 Thread Tom DeReggi
FCC regulation made it mandatory to report. Its not optionional.
They limited reporting detail to a level that they felt would not compromise 
other privacy or confidenciality or competition laws.

With that said... 
I personally feel that the FCC is on legally weak grounds to force WISPs to 
provide such data, for a number of reasons. 
If I got a fine, I'd go to court to fight it, before I'd pay it.  However, if 
the FCC took the time to make the cortesy call, the party in violation is on 
the radar, and it would sure be much easier for the party to just report the 
data, after they got that call.

I dont think the FCC has ever fined anyone or audited the data reported. I dont 
think it would go over very well if they did.
But I surely dont think its worth the risk to test them. They have the 
authority to impose the fine on ISPs and WISPs for not filing.
(unless over turned faught in court)

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Brian Webster 
  To: 'WISPA General List' 
  Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 1:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC477 fines?


  I believe it has been that way all along, they just never enforced it.

   

  Thank You,

  Brian Webster

  www.wirelessmapping.com

  www.Broadband-Mapping.com

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Cameron Crum
  Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:57 AM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] FCC477 fines?

   

  One of our customers got a call today from the FCC. The FCC representative on 
the other end told him that he had missed the deadline for filing his 477 form 
and that this was a courtesy call. If he did not get his filing in soon, he 
would be subject to a fine. Well it was easy enough to rectify with our 
software for him, but I'm curious as to when this became a finable offense. 
Does anyone know? We called and questioned the FCC rep who threatened our 
customer and he told us it was the law, although he was unable to tell us when 
the law went into effect, or which piece of legislation made it law and a 
finable offense. Can you really be fined for this now? Any of you lurking 
lawyers out there know? I'd be curious to know.

  Regards,

  Cameron



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Cogent vs. Hurricane

2011-05-12 Thread Tom DeReggi
I'd vote: Hurricane...

Because...
1) Hurricane is better/easier to work with for the WISP provider, from the 
accounting/management side. (Customers probably wont be able to tell the 
difference)

2) Hurricaine is better prepared for the future with IPv6.

3) Cogent is more likely to compete against you to obtain  your clients.

The reasoning here is that Hurricaine is primarilly just in the data 
center. Cogent goes out to the city buildings.
And you end up providing your upstream confidential info about your 
customers, such as usage per IP, and BGP or IP info, etc.

What I will say about Cogent is... their tech support is awesome at any hour 
of the night. Its the only reason we still use them.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com
To: WUG us...@wug.cc; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:05 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Cogent vs. Hurricane


 Looking at a GigE to a datacenter with both Cogent and Hurricane.
 Anybody using them?  Which is better for gamers etc?


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] looking for ideas...

2011-05-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
If voice copper already runs between the sites, you can use EFM.  (Wikipedia 
EFM)
9000ft upto 6mb over voice copper.
And an alternate version (VDSL based) can do minimum 10mb, but not as far.

But when ever cable needs to be run long distances, say over 650ft (two 
segments with swtich in between), it generally warrants fiber because fiber is 
also cheap, and then you have expansion.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Larry A Weidig 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for ideas...


  My initial response is fiber, due to distances.  However, you might be able 
to get away with something less costly depending on requirements.  What speed? 
10, 100, 1000, 10G.  There are lots of Ethernet extenders that can give you 
speeds to 100 Mbps over coax, copper,. just Google it and you will find plenty. 
 We have used these when fiber is not an option.  However, make sure you take 
grounding between buildings into account as well with stuff like coax/copper.  
If you can afford it fiber is your best option.

   

  * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net)

  * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/

  * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area

  * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free

   

  From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Blair Davis
  Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:17 PM
  To: WISPA General List
  Subject: [WISPA] looking for ideas...

   

  I have a special job to do.

  I need to connect 4 sites together in a line and provide Ethernet 
connectivity between them.  I may NOT use wireless to do this.

  I can run overhead cable of most any type I need to.  Coax, cat3 or cat5, or 
even fiber if the price is right...

  Site 1 to site 2 is 700 ft.  Site 2 to site 3 is 900 ft.  Site 3 to site 4 is 
2400 ft. 

  Looking for options...



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Possible interference with Alvarion 2.4 / 5.8 GHz

2011-05-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
The first thing I'd clarify is who has interference protection priority, in 
their colocation agreement? You or them?

This will define who has to assume the burden of cost or unconvenience to 
resolve and prevent interference.

Are your AP Antennas integrated or embedded? If embedded, the other party does 
not under stand the FCC certified system rules, that prevent you from inserting 
filters, which you couldn't do either without changing your APs to ext models.

I would argue that front in overload is a likely possibilty. I'd argue that you 
should push to have the other parties new equipment to be installed at a 
location a safe distance vertically away from your antennas, to prevent the 
overload, and to pre-calculate what that safe distance needs to be.
(also de-sensitization could occur)

Or, if this is going to be a trial and error thing, that its made clear the 
proceedure and timeline for resolution (which should be immediate) if 
interference is heard. I'd suggest being available on day going live, so you 
can have them shut down, if link quality get hurt for your customers.

If you already have ext model ap in the air, it may be easier to just buy and 
install the filters as a precaution, if the insertion loss is acceptable to 
incur.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Eduardo 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:56 PM
  Subject: [WISPA] Possible interference with Alvarion 2.4 / 5.8 GHz


Hi, I have 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz AP´s in a tower where a company is planning to 
install above our antennas a channel 24 LPTV antenna receiving on 647 MHZ 
(channel 43) and transmitting on 533 MHz (channel 24). My question is if the 
harmonics could cause any interference to us or could be an issue? These are 
the specifications we received from the company: The transmit power will be 580 
watts on TV channel 24 which is 530-536 MHzThe transmitter is heavily filtered 
with a stringent mask to eliminate out of band energy.  
http://louise.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2010/74/794/If there are any 
problems it's likely due to front end overload of your equipment. That can be 
easily resolved with the addition of filters between your antenna(s) and 
receiver(s).If your 2.4 GHz equipment suffers any interference I'd propose an 
L-com BPF2400A: http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=22046If your 5.8 GHz 
equipment is bothered the BPF5800A should eliminate any issues: 
http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=22184Any comment will be welcome. Thanks. 
EduardoWebjogger Internet Serviceswww.webjogger.net

--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Dennis's Router OS Book.

2011-04-26 Thread Tom DeReggi
I just bought a copy of Dennis Burgess's Learn Router OS Book.
I have to say, I felt it was very well written and laid out intuitively.
For those that haven't seen it, and have new techs needing to be introduced to 
Mikrotik, I highly recommend it.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs

2011-04-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
For curiosity, what did you upgrade to, to get higher speeds than the Canopy?
And how did it work out for you? 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Scott Piehn 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:56 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs


  Just wondering if there is a market and how much for Canopy 900 SMs.

  We have 100 or so extra due to upgrades to get higher speed


  -
  Scott Piehn





--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs

2011-04-22 Thread Tom DeReggi
Yeah, we did the same at some of our towers also.  When it costs $300 per 
sector antenna per month, we dont install two antennas in the same direction 
unless the second one can pay for itself.  For example, in one case there 
were 35 homes to serve, 5 with LOS and 30 without.  900Mhz was a requirement 
for 30. It was hard to justify to pay an extra $300 per month just to serve 5 
more homes with 5.x at a profit loss. Before video, the 35 homes on a 900 
sector gave bettter speeds than most DSL. We now are overlaying  5.x sectors, 
just because I need all the 900 mhz capacity for the NLOS customers, even if it 
means breaking even on the 5.x customers, better than loosing them. Plus, as 
new homes are built, and trees get cut, a few more homes pop up that have LOS. 
At current Ubiquiti prices, it becomes much more cost effective to install a 
sector for a few LOS customers, but that option was not nearly as cost 
effective 5 years ago. 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: support 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 5:14 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs


  you where installing 900Mhz SM's for all that had L.O.S to your tower?

  WOW



  On 4/22/2011 2:10 PM, Scott Piehn wrote: 
Ubiquiti M5s.  

Where we can do the switch due to trees, have been very happy.  Has defiantly 
cut down on service calls.

We still have all the 900 APs in the air, just fewer customers on them.



Scott Piehn
JCWIFI.com Division Manager
Computer Dynamics
451 W. South St
Freeport, IL 61032
spi...@computerdyn.com
V 815.233.2641
F 815.233.6225
  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 11:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs


  For curiosity, what did you upgrade to, to get higher speeds than the Canopy?
  And how did it work out for you? 

  Tom DeReggi
  RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
  IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Scott Piehn 
To: WISPA General List 
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:56 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs


Just wondering if there is a market and how much for Canopy 900 SMs.

We have 100 or so extra due to upgrades to get higher speed


-
Scott Piehn












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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 


Tim Steele

supp...@nitline.com

NITLine Support

(574) 772-7550 ext 103

www.NITLine.net

--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

2011-04-08 Thread Tom DeReggi
There is definately a need for different queue types at different points on 
the network. Multiple Queue types have been developed because there are 
different problems to solve for different situations.

What I question is when it is necessary to solve a problem. I hardly justify 
a complete network queueing standard overhaul, just to satisfy the abilty to 
perform a single stream TCP test to Speak easy at full speed, when most 
business circuits serve many TCP streams at a time to fill capacity.

So it boils down to weighing the scale of how bad the problem is and how 
badly the customers notices it. There can be a very fine line on which 
Queueing methods are required for specific cases, and sometimes picking one 
makes it easier to consistently implement, even if there are some trade 
offs. On our core routers we've found RED to work well.  But we also have 
other areas where we queue where we use other things, such building routers 
or customer routers.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?

2011-04-08 Thread Tom DeReggi
Butch, Nice reply, I agree with everything you said.

I agree that the time to begin managing network traffic, is always.
The reason I believe this is...
1) any thing one does to help, helps.
2) If you dont have traffic management in place, when you need it, it will 
be to late.

But its also important to recognize that flaws might exist in a network 
design that cant easilly be avoided, that can undermine an administrators 
attempt to manage their traffic. What I mean by that is that, some variable 
beyond one's control might have a higher effect than factors that are in 
one's control. So because of this, traffic management techniques cant always 
be 100% relied on, although they help a great deal.

One of the best examples is the impact of half duplex radios, or adaptive 
speed (modulation) radios, on bandwdith management systems that treat 
outbound and inbound traffic seperately. In many cases, bandwidth management 
requires you to know the capacity of a link in advance. So, lets say you 
have a 10mbps half duplex link. If you want to be able to have 10mbps up 
traffic, you must tell your bandwidth management to allow that 10mbps up. 
But then what happens if you have 5mbps of download traffic? The upload 
bandwidth management still thinks it has 10mbps max, but in reality it only 
has 5mbps available, while 5mbps is downloading. Its impossibly to know in 
advance the up and down ratio. Or lets look at it a different way... RED 
gracefully drops packets to slow down throughput as needed. When a half 
duplex link gets saturated, which direction (up or down traffic) should 
packets be dropped from? Many of the traffic management methods are based on 
the assumption that links are full duplex, and get applied to outbound 
interfaces, therefore a different interface or queue per direction. In some 
cases, a different router manages the traffic in the other direction, and 
not able to communicate with the other router.. (example, router on each 
side of a link, each managing a queue for outbound).  Traffic management is 
much easier to impliment on a full duplex fixed capacity fiber connection, 
than it is on a variable half duplex wireless connection. Queuing traffic 
management is not the same as bandwidth management, but none the less, I 
believe to have demonstrated my point.

When our network was less congested, traffic management tools made a huge 
different for us to maximize the amount of data we could pass smoothly 
accross our network efficiently. What we found was that half duplex was 
efficient for RF, and not a disadvantage for wireless. This worked well 
for us, for 10 years. But as our network became more congested, half duplex 
did show to be  a challenge for traffic management. It came to a point where 
Full Duplex licensed links was the only answer, and helped the most. And 
then our traffic management became more reliable as a result. My point is, 
its not only the method of traffic management that matters, but also the 
characteristics of the network.
Queuing and QOS will always help make the best of one's network, but it wont 
fully make up for deficiencies in a physical network.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Butch Evans but...@butchevans.com
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?


 On 04/08/2011 12:07 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
 There is definately a need for different queue types at different points 
 on
 the network. Multiple Queue types have been developed because there are
 different problems to solve for different situations.
 This is true.

 What I question is when it is necessary to solve a problem. I hardly 
 justify
 a complete network queueing standard overhaul, just to satisfy the abilty 
 to
 perform a single stream TCP test to Speak easy at full speed, when most
 business circuits serve many TCP streams at a time to fill capacity.
 This is a very good point.  The current trending of internet traffic is
 geared toward more and more streams.  Of the available queue types, only
 SFQ (or one of it's derivative types) and RED make much sense.  FIFO
 queues, without properly managing the traffic entering those queues,
 will cause customers to sit up and take notice in a negative way.  The
 problem with SFQ is that the algorithm used to implement this is fairly
 slow.  It doesn't work well under heavy load.  More specifically, it
 falls apart when the volume of traffic is excessive.  Mikrotik adds
 another queue type called PCQ, which is sort of like FIFO queues grouped
 by some classifier such as source addresses and/or ports OR destination
 addresses and/or ports OR some wicked combination of all of the above.
 PCQ is an alternative, as it allows you to set per classification speed
 limits, but in the end, it is still FIFO per class, which requires very
 careful crafting of defining traffic types

Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

2011-04-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
80ms? Ouch.

That must play havoc for TCP. Clearly not business grade.
Having a local wireless service with latency worse than a wired USA East to 
West coast round trip.

With that kind of latency, I dont see how a user would get all that good a 
performance transfer rate in real world application over the Internet, 
considering average window sizes..

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update


 LTE latency is about 60-100 ms

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Gino Villarini
 Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:13 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

 Yes, wimax latencies on d and e systems are documented, im talking about
 LTE latency

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:07 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

 Wimax. Not mobile. Mobile has higher latency times.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:

 Wimax or LTE?

 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 787.273.4143
 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
 On
 Behalf Of Jeremie Chism
 Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:55 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

 Depending on your cp ratio that will determine latency (atleast on
 mine). Lower cp ratio gives lower latency numbers. We typically see
 20ms.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Blake Covarrubias bl...@beamspeed.com
 wrote:

 On Apr 5, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

 That's air rate, actual throughput its about 60%... LTE Latency?
 IIRC
 it
 was in the 100 ms?


 I can't comment on LTE, but we're doing a trial of mobile WiMAX and
 seeing about 50-60ms back to the ASN gateway.

 --
 Blake Covarrubias




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


 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



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

 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless

Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

2011-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
Exactly why we need

1) Less spectrum to go to auctions, and more spectrum to go to unlicenced.

2) High power allowed in spectrum bands.

3) Manufacturters to raise their standard, to take advantage of latest radio 
and antenna  technologies.


Let me give you an example of what I mean..

Moto old product, 20Mhz, 14mb real (20mb)
Moto new product (ofdm), 10Mhz  20mbps (35mb) in a lab, with noise maybe 
10-15mbps (qam16).

Why didn't they make a 20Mhz OFDM product, so that we could offer faster 
speeds, with their new product?
Why didn;t they make a MIMO OFDM product, so we could use faster speeds, 
with their new products?
Why didn;t they make a multiple diversity smart antenna model?
Why haven't they made smart MIMO gear with modes above 16, such as to allow 
chain0 and chain1 to operate at different modulations?

I'm not meaning to pick on Moto, they are a good company, I'm just using 
them as an easy example everyone could identify with. I know the answer why. 
Because they want to sell more radios, and not compete with their other 
product lines, not make us more efficent and competitive, so we need to buy 
fewer radios.

My point is... the technology is out there. Whether manufacturers embrace it 
quick enough is another story.

The demand is clearly there. If anything LTE is clearly creating harder 
competition for the private WISP industry.

I dont think we'll ever get the signal into everyone's living room without 
antennas... Only licensed can operate at such a low sensitivity, because of 
low noise. (except for Whitespace users). But we surely could do better, if 
the technology was stepped up a couple notches.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com
To: li...@stlbroadband.com; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update


 It's generally known that the 20 Mb burst given by cable companies is 
 throttled to sustained download speeds in the 1-3 Mb range

 That said, the point I'm trying to make is that the technology has come so 
 far for mobile cellular data that we are now unconsciously comparing it 
 side-by-side to fixed terrestrial broadband technologies (think of it this 
 way, how many WISPs can deliver up-to speeds of 8-10 Mb to a low power 
 handset in the middle of a concrete building 3+ miles away from a tower)

 -Charles

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband
 Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:33 PM
 To: 'WISPA General List'
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

 I just checked my Charter via Ookla and it said I was getting 20 Mbps down
 and 1 Mbps up, horse pucky.
 I only get that in speedtests and never when I have to upload or download 
 a
 big file via FTP or whatever.
 It generally gets throttled to dial up speeds or worse.

 ~V~

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Charles Wu
 Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:21 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

 Sitting in my living room at 8 pm3 bars, laptop connected to wireless
 router on phone

 http://www.speedtest.net/result/1236758959.png

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:39 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW

 Yeah, its nice when a product is brand new, and you get the whole sector 
 all

 to yourself.

 I guess, its amazing that you are getting the speed to a handset, without
 the big antenna outside.

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com
 To: paolo.difrance...@level7.it; WISPA GeneralList 
 wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 8:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW


 It is my understanding that Verizon is deploying an FDD version of LTE

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco
 Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:09 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW

 most of the test are half duplex tests. In few words, they do one
 direction, then the other direction (e.g. first the customer download,
 then the customer upload).

 Suppose you have a 10Mb half duplex: the test will tell you that you
 have 10Mb in one direction and 10Mb in the other direction. Then you use
 the connection in 10Mb full duplex and you will discover the story is
 totally different ;)

 Also, yes it's interesting to see what is happening on the network
 interface when the test is running...

 Do a real test and report back, like FTP. Ookla

Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

2011-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
yes +1, but WISPs can only upgrade if there is a product to upgrade to.

No one wants to upgrade without accomplishing enough compensation or gain to 
match the effort and cost.

The industry has done a very good job at getting the price down on typical 
style WISP gear.
But I'm not confident that the industry has done all it could to innovate 
and release state of the art radios at the same price as the old ones?

Lets look at the PC industry and Intel CPUs... Each year the speed 
capability has exponentially increased. After one year a computer is 
considered outdated to the dark ages.

In the Radio industry, I can use a radio I bought 10 years ago, and it 
performs almost as good as the neweest model, or no less than a 50% 
degregation.

Comparing the radio industry to the PC industry, the radio industry's 
performance/innovation growth rate is light years behind the PC industry.

The radio industry is still caught up on being proud of what they can 
accomplish in a lab. But they are not working hard enough to deliver for 
real world competitive and technical challenges.

A perfect example is MIMO. The fact is... Noise will always exist and always 
be unpredictable. MIMO has been a reality for two years now. Everyone is 
happy with basic mode 1-16 MIMO.  But in the real world its common for one 
polarity to have more noise than the 90deg different polarity. Why run both 
chains at the lower modulation of the noisiest channel, compromising the 
overall speed? Just that problem alone, if solved, would yield a 30% 
increase in throughput out n the real world, to bring real world deployments 
closer to lab capabilty. MIMO modes above 16, were in the spec for years. 
Why  aren't they being developed?

Are we all going to have to buy LTE chipsets radios and modify them for 
unlciensed to be competitive?



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net
To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List 
wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update


 +1

 very well said.. to the point !...
 Innovate / Upgrade to keep up with the demand or become obsolete and
 irrelevant. !
 ---

 The WISP's themselves will need to keep business plans
 that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to 
 remain
 continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade and
 replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will also
 need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up and to show
 that there is not stagnation with the company and its offerings.
 ---

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet  Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, Fl 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net


 On 4/5/2011 9:04 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
 I have always said the cellular carriers have the over the air interface 
 to
 deliver good speeds for the most part. It's their backhaul network that
 needs work and they are slowly and steadily upgrading that. While most 
 are
 bashing them, they eventually will have upgraded the sites to remain
 competitive. They are far from perfect but once they finally have true
 Ethernet transport to every site, their performance will improve a lot 
 over
 all digital modes they offer. They are and will continue to be a player 
 in
 the broadband world. Best for WISP's to keep an eye on what they are 
 doing
 and keep the pace with the overall broadband market changes. Fortunately 
 it
 seems that the fixed wireless technology has kept the pace and/or 
 exceeded
 other technologies. The WISP's themselves will need to keep business 
 plans
 that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to 
 remain
 continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade 
 and
 replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will also
 need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up and to 
 show
 that there is not stagnation with the company and its offerings.

 Thank You,
 Brian Webster
 www.wirelessmapping.com
 www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
 Behalf Of Charles Wu
 Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:37 AM
 To: li...@stlbroadband.com; WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

 It's generally known that the 20 Mb burst given by cable companies is
 throttled to sustained download speeds in the 1-3 Mb range

 That said, the point I'm trying to make is that the technology has come 
 so
 far for mobile cellular data that we are now unconsciously comparing it
 side-by-side to fixed terrestrial broadband technologies (think of it 
 this
 way, how many WISPs

Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update

2011-04-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
I dont care what the CPE costs, I care about what the AP costs.

The big dollar APs can be a big deterent to grow organically.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update


I know Axxcelera is planning LTE equipment in the 3.65 ghz band this year. 
It is cost effective to deploy to businesses in an Internet/VoIP setup but 
will not make it to the residential market at anything that will make money 
because the cpe's run in the 300.00 range.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Apr 5, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Tom DeReggi wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net 
 wrote:

 yes +1, but WISPs can only upgrade if there is a product to upgrade to.

 No one wants to upgrade without accomplishing enough compensation or gain 
 to
 match the effort and cost.

 The industry has done a very good job at getting the price down on 
 typical
 style WISP gear.
 But I'm not confident that the industry has done all it could to innovate
 and release state of the art radios at the same price as the old ones?

 Lets look at the PC industry and Intel CPUs... Each year the speed
 capability has exponentially increased. After one year a computer is
 considered outdated to the dark ages.

 In the Radio industry, I can use a radio I bought 10 years ago, and it
 performs almost as good as the neweest model, or no less than a 50%
 degregation.

 Comparing the radio industry to the PC industry, the radio industry's
 performance/innovation growth rate is light years behind the PC industry.

 The radio industry is still caught up on being proud of what they can
 accomplish in a lab. But they are not working hard enough to deliver for
 real world competitive and technical challenges.

 A perfect example is MIMO. The fact is... Noise will always exist and 
 always
 be unpredictable. MIMO has been a reality for two years now. Everyone is
 happy with basic mode 1-16 MIMO.  But in the real world its common for 
 one
 polarity to have more noise than the 90deg different polarity. Why run 
 both
 chains at the lower modulation of the noisiest channel, compromising the
 overall speed? Just that problem alone, if solved, would yield a 30%
 increase in throughput out n the real world, to bring real world 
 deployments
 closer to lab capabilty. MIMO modes above 16, were in the spec for years.
 Why  aren't they being developed?

 Are we all going to have to buy LTE chipsets radios and modify them for
 unlciensed to be competitive?



 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net
 To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
 wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:35 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update


 +1

 very well said.. to the point !...
 Innovate / Upgrade to keep up with the demand or become obsolete and
 irrelevant. !
 ---

 The WISP's themselves will need to keep business plans
 that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to
 remain
 continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade 
 and
 replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will 
 also
 need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up and to 
 show
 that there is not stagnation with the company and its offerings.
 ---

 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet  Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, Fl 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net


 On 4/5/2011 9:04 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
 I have always said the cellular carriers have the over the air 
 interface
 to
 deliver good speeds for the most part. It's their backhaul network that
 needs work and they are slowly and steadily upgrading that. While most
 are
 bashing them, they eventually will have upgraded the sites to remain
 competitive. They are far from perfect but once they finally have true
 Ethernet transport to every site, their performance will improve a lot
 over
 all digital modes they offer. They are and will continue to be a player
 in
 the broadband world. Best for WISP's to keep an eye on what they are
 doing
 and keep the pace with the overall broadband market changes. 
 Fortunately
 it
 seems that the fixed wireless technology has kept the pace and/or
 exceeded
 other technologies. The WISP's themselves will need to keep business
 plans
 that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to
 remain
 continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade
 and
 replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will 
 also
 need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up

Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW

2011-04-04 Thread Tom DeReggi
Yeah, its nice when a product is brand new, and you get the whole sector all 
to yourself.

I guess, its amazing that you are getting the speed to a handset, without 
the big antenna outside.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Charles Wu c...@cticonnect.com
To: paolo.difrance...@level7.it; WISPA GeneralList wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW


 It is my understanding that Verizon is deploying an FDD version of LTE

 -Original Message-
 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
 Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco
 Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:09 AM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW

 most of the test are half duplex tests. In few words, they do one
 direction, then the other direction (e.g. first the customer download,
 then the customer upload).

 Suppose you have a 10Mb half duplex: the test will tell you that you
 have 10Mb in one direction and 10Mb in the other direction. Then you use
 the connection in 10Mb full duplex and you will discover the story is
 totally different ;)

 Also, yes it's interesting to see what is happening on the network
 interface when the test is running...

 Do a real test and report back, like FTP. Ookla  Speedtest.net test are
 bogus 99.9% percent of the time because it's based on screwy test
 algorithms.

 On 04/01/2011 11:05 PM, Charles Wu wrote:

 Just got my HTC Thunderbolt, and Ookla tested 20 Mb down, 24 Mb up at
 Speedtest.Net to my handset



 -Charles




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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 -- 


 Ing. Paolo Di Francesco

 Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale

 Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo

 C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
 Fax : +39-091-8772072
 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
 web: http://www.level7.it





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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] OpenSource Email Server platform

2011-03-28 Thread Tom DeReggi
I'm not advocating to prefer either inhouse or outsource, its a personal 
decission.

But, it is important to understand that the cost to deliver Email services is 
not the primary variable to consider to make the decision to inhouse or 
outsource.

The primary variable is who a WISP wants to let have access to their Clients. 
Email is the number one way to easilly address one's client base.   
Its worth far more than .35 per user, to keep my customer's eyeballs and ears.

Just because I host inhouse Email does not mean I can keep my customer's 
eyeballs, GMail is tough competitions. But for me, its worth trying, 
considering I have the capabilty to have their ears with a live support person, 
and Google only has the option for Eyeballs since it is mostly web support. Not 
to mention, I already have a sunk pre-existing investment in Email server 
software and hardware. But I'm pretty certain it costs me more to host my own 
Email than it would to outsource.  I dont do it to save money, that is for sure.

The question to ask yourself is Do you want to be your customer's support 
person? There can be many benefits to being that, if a WISP takes advantage of 
that opportunity. I observe the bigger problem is that WISPs dont take 
advantage of the opportiunity for what ever reason.  
  
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Cameron Crum 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:58 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] OpenSource Email Server platform


  I can't see why not.


  On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Christopher Hair wirele...@ntinet.com 
wrote:

Do you have the ability to do multiple domains with the Google platform?  
We also offer hosting services that need email.



-Chris



From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
Behalf Of Cameron Crum
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 4:24 PM


To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OpenSource Email Server platform



I would second qmailtoaster if you have to have your own server. 
Personally, I would never run my own server again. At $0.35/mailbox with google 
or other hosted platforms, the time and effort it takes to keep things updated 
and blocking spam effectively are much more costly. 

Regards,

Cameron

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Frank Crawford mogoo...@gmx.com wrote:

http://www.mailenable.com/standard_edition.asp

There is a free (as in beer) edition and versions with the requirements
that you requested.

Frank


On 3/28/2011 12:53 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
 Since we began in '98 we've been using the same windows based email 
server MailMax.  Because of some support/productivity issues we are 
investigating integrating a new box.  The requirements are: webmail, web 
management of individuals mail accounts (with password reset), pop3/smtp/imap, 
can run on Windows or Linux.  We would also like a calendar and address book 
module in webmail as well.

 Anyone have suggestions?

 Thanks,
 Patrick Nix, Jr.,
 Computer Network Solutions
 CSWEB.NET Internet Services
 IT Manager
 http://www.cnetworksolutions.com
 http://www.csweb.net
 (918) 235-0414


 Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and 
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify 
the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any 
copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the 
intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal.


 

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


 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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








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



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Correction- Contact for House Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications- Kill NetNeutrality

2011-03-07 Thread Tom DeReggi
HJ Res 37 actually will occur in front of House Subcommittee on Communications 
and Telecommunications.
Here is a corrected Contact List.
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctclang=commcode=hcommerce_tech
Committee Membership
  Majority Members (Republicans)  
  Member Name DC Phone DC FAX 
  Greg Walden (R-OR) [Chair] 202-225-6730 202-225-5774 
  Lee Terry (R-NE)  202-225-4155 202-226-5452 
  Cliff Stearns (R-FL)  202-225-5744 202-225-3973 
  John Shimkus (R-IL)  202-225-5271 202-225-5880 
  Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)  202-225-5330 202-225-2961 
  Mike Rogers (R-MI)  202-225-4872 202-225-5820 
  Brian P. Bilbray (R-CA)  202-225-0508 202-225-2558 
  Charles F. (Charlie) Bass (R-NH)  202-225-5206 202-225-2946 
  Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)  202-225-2811 202-225-3004 
  Phil Gingrey (R-GA)  202-225-2931 202-225-2944 
  Steve Scalise (R-LA)  202-225-3015 202-226-0386 
  Bob Latta (R-OH)  202-225-6405 202-225-1985 
  Brett Guthrie (R-KY)  202-225-3501 202-226-2019 
  Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)  202-225-3635 202-225-3521 
  Joe Barton (R-TX)  202-225-2002 202-225-3052 

  Minority Members (Democrats)  
  Member Name DC Phone DC FAX 
  Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-8104 202-225-8890 
  Ed Markey (D-MA)  202-225-2836 202-226-0092 
  Mike Doyle (D-PA)  202-225-2135 202-225-3084 
  Doris Matsui (D-CA)  202-225-7163 202-225-0566 
  John Barrow (D-GA)  202-225-2823 202-225-3377 
  Edolphus (Ed) Towns (D-NY)  202-225-5936 202-225-1018 
  Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)  202-225-4671 202-225-9665 
  Bobby L. Rush (D-IL)  202-225-4372 202-226-0333 
  Diana DeGette (D-CO)  202-225-4431 202-225-5657 
  John D. Dingell (D-MI)  202-225-4071 202-226-0371 



This Congressional data compilation Copyright © 2011 Congress Merge. All Rights 
Reserved.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
301-515-7774
IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
301-515-7774
IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 110 input for ARC enclosure

2011-03-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
The House and Energy Committee will have a hearing this Wednesday, regarding 
H.J. Res 37, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communication 
Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry 
practices.

I, Tom DeReggi, representing RapidDSL  Wireless, have accepted the honor of 
testifying before Congress at this hearing.
I'd like to note that this will be the second time a WISP will testfiy on this 
topic within a 2 week period, strengthening the relevence of our WISP Industry. 

In summary, if successful, and H.J. Res 37 is passed, it will reverse and 
nullify FCC's recent NetNEutrality rules.  This is our chance to kill the poor 
NetNeutrality rules instantly in its tracks.

Quick background.
  a.. On Monday, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton 
(MI-6) and Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee Greg 
Walden (OR-2) announced that on Wednesday they would markup H.J. Res. 37 . For 
those of you unfamiliar with the term markup, It means they would have limited 
debate followed by a vote on the resolution and any amendments . 
  b.. On Tuesday, Representatives Waxman (CA-30) and Eshoo (CA-14) sent a 
letter to the Chairs asking for them to hold a hearing on H.R. Res 37 before 
markup (as is standard practice). 
  c.. On Wednesday (march 2nd), the Communications and Technology Subcommittee 
announced that they would delay the markup, and hold a hearing on it at some 
point in the future. 
The future is this upcoming Wednesday the 9th!! Talkin about quick action!! 

Now it is our chance to send FCC Chairman Genacowski (and commissioners) a 
clear message. That we will NOT accept rule making that IGNORES the interests 
of small business WISPs, and that we will go over their heads, if they ignore 
us.  So why, am I so much against NetNeutrality? MANY REASONS. But the most 
obvious was that the FCC gave special consideration to mobile wirless carriers, 
but lumped Fixed Wireless Providers in with Fiber and wireline providers with 
out ANY consessions for our unique disadvantages industry. Giving reasonable 
network mangement and usage billing was NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH to address 
WISP's  concerns. What the FCC really gave us was uncertainty, more 
regulations, more technical distractions, and more liabilty, that surely would 
lead to higher legal costs and  customer support frustrations. NetNEutrality 
empowered and entitled Content providers and Consumers to control our networks, 
but left Access Providers to Foot the Bill. We were no longer free to etablish 
our own business model, but instead forced to be an Advance Broadband Company 
(Streaming Video), if we wanted to offer broadband without legal consequences.  
We need to take our authority back as private business and network owners.   We 
actually have a really good chance to win Wednesday. Why, because the service 
provider industry (ILECS, CLECs, CableCos, WISPs, MobileWireless) is almost 
unaminously united in the fight against the FCC overstepping their bounds, and 
the committee is now majoirty Republican, and isn't obligated to follow the 
president's party. Verizon has already opened legal suit against the FCC as 
well, and threatening to stop investment. 

We need to convey several core messages, likely the top 3 most importance. That 
NetNeutrality rules (as-is) will..
1. reduce or slow Investment in broadband build out.
2. slow bringing broadband to all Americans and underserved areas
3. cause loss of jobs or reduce jobs. (counter democrat's claim that 
NetNEutrality will create jobs)
4. harm small business access providers, and stiffle innovation
5. harm our subscibers, or degrade service to our subscribers.
6. creates challenges in network management or operations, which rules are not 
reasable to comply with. (over burdening).
7. are a distraction that take us away from our more important goal, to deploy 
broadband

I'm still writing my presentation/testimony, so dont have it to share with 
membership yet.

Right now the Republicans are on a rampage to help us. Lets show them our 
support and that we are watching.   (Please note I am NOT endorsing a specific 
party and am not meaning to favor republicans or democrats. I am refering to 
them only in the context of my observations of where I've read that the 
majority in the party tend to stand currently on this specific topic/process)

I suggeset a plan of action for members.
To flood the House Committee members with support letters to PASS HJ RES 37. 

I've attached a list of the committee members to contact. A higher priority may 
be to convince democrat members.

I suggest sending these support letters Tuesday Morning. 
Simply state, that you are a  WISP, and that you SUPPORT  HJ Res 37, and 
encourage your representative to PASS the bill.to overturn the FCC's poor 
NetNEutrality rule making.
Then if you have any additional comment to add, follow with that, specifically 
things like, you are now

[WISPA] WISP Testifying before Congress Wednes - Kill NetNeutrality - What you can do!

2011-03-06 Thread Tom DeReggi
Reforwarding. Sorry for the repeat, I forgot to change the subject field 
appropriately, last Email send.

The House and Energy Committee will have a hearing this Wednesday, regarding 
H.J. Res 37, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communication 
Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry 
practices.

I, Tom DeReggi, representing RapidDSL  Wireless, have accepted the honor of 
testifying before Congress at this hearing.
I'd like to note that this will be the second time a WISP will testfiy on this 
topic within a 2 week period, strengthening the relevence of our WISP Industry. 

In summary, if successful, and H.J. Res 37 is passed, it will reverse and 
nullify FCC's recent NetNEutrality rules.  This is our chance to kill the poor 
NetNeutrality rules instantly in its tracks.

Quick background.
  a.. On Monday, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton 
(MI-6) and Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee Greg 
Walden (OR-2) announced that on Wednesday they would markup H.J. Res. 37 . For 
those of you unfamiliar with the term markup, It means they would have limited 
debate followed by a vote on the resolution and any amendments . 
  b.. On Tuesday, Representatives Waxman (CA-30) and Eshoo (CA-14) sent a 
letter to the Chairs asking for them to hold a hearing on H.R. Res 37 before 
markup (as is standard practice). 
  c.. On Wednesday (march 2nd), the Communications and Technology Subcommittee 
announced that they would delay the markup, and hold a hearing on it at some 
point in the future. 
The future is this upcoming Wednesday the 9th!! Talkin about quick action!! 

Now it is our chance to send FCC Chairman Genacowski (and commissioners) a 
clear message. That we will NOT accept rule making that IGNORES the interests 
of small business WISPs, and that we will go over their heads, if they ignore 
us.  So why, am I so much against NetNeutrality? MANY REASONS. But the most 
obvious was that the FCC gave special consideration to mobile wirless carriers, 
but lumped Fixed Wireless Providers in with Fiber and wireline providers with 
out ANY consessions for our unique disadvantages industry. Giving reasonable 
network mangement and usage billing was NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH to address 
WISP's  concerns. What the FCC really gave us was uncertainty, more 
regulations, more technical distractions, and more liabilty, that surely would 
lead to higher legal costs and  customer support frustrations. NetNEutrality 
empowered and entitled Content providers and Consumers to control our networks, 
but left Access Providers to Foot the Bill. We were no longer free to etablish 
our own business model, but instead forced to be an Advance Broadband Company 
(Streaming Video), if we wanted to offer broadband without legal consequences.  
We need to take our authority back as private business and network owners.   We 
actually have a really good chance to win Wednesday. Why, because the service 
provider industry (ILECS, CLECs, CableCos, WISPs, MobileWireless) is almost 
unaminously united in the fight against the FCC overstepping their bounds, and 
the committee is now majoirty Republican, and isn't obligated to follow the 
president's party. Verizon has already opened legal suit against the FCC as 
well, and threatening to stop investment. 

We need to convey several core messages, likely the top 3 most importance. That 
NetNeutrality rules (as-is) will..
1. reduce or slow Investment in broadband build out.
2. slow bringing broadband to all Americans and underserved areas
3. cause loss of jobs or reduce jobs. (counter democrat's claim that 
NetNEutrality will create jobs)
4. harm small business access providers, and stiffle innovation
5. harm our subscibers, or degrade service to our subscribers.
6. creates challenges in network management or operations, which rules are not 
reasable to comply with. (over burdening).
7. are a distraction that take us away from our more important goal, to deploy 
broadband

I'm still writing my presentation/testimony, so dont have it to share with 
membership yet.

Right now the Republicans are on a rampage to help us. Lets show them our 
support and that we are watching.   (Please note I am NOT endorsing a specific 
party and am not meaning to favor republicans or democrats. I am refering to 
them only in the context of my observations of where I've read that the 
majority in the party tend to stand currently on this specific topic/process)

I suggeset a plan of action for members.
To flood the House Committee members with support letters to PASS HJ RES 37. 

I've attached a list of the committee members to contact. A higher priority may 
be to convince democrat members.

I suggest sending these support letters Tuesday Morning. 
Simply state, that you are a  WISP, and that you SUPPORT  HJ Res 37, and 
encourage your representative to PASS the bill.to overturn the FCC's poor 
NetNEutrality rule making

Re: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

2011-03-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
I cant speak for WISPA's official opinon but

I am still very much against NetNeutrality, as all it really is is an excuse 
for more regulation and less competion, and protection for content providers, 
and more liablilty for Access providers. And quite honestly, I am still 
appauled that the FCC bundled WISPs in with Fixed Wireline carriers, without 
any special consideration.
That just supports why we should not want this group of FCC leaders to define 
and control our fate via more regulation.


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: MDK 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:08 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...


  
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1page=

  Excerpt:
  House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top 
communications companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are 
not doing more to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. 

  A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

  
http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/

  Excerpt:

  The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.  
Net Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the 
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things like 
Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to 
control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control 
what is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

  You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. 
That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over 
network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable 
companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of 
the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from 
control.


  I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

  I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost! 
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your 
future plans bandwagon?

  The two roads diverged a while back.   

  Which is WISPA on?  


  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...

2011-03-05 Thread Tom DeReggi
And now is the time to jump back in on the fight because the republicans have 
gained a lot of headway towards reversing the FCC's actions.
And they are likely going to win, with the support of the industry behind them.
 
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: MDK 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:08 AM
  Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...


  
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=componentprint=1page=

  Excerpt:
  House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top 
communications companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are 
not doing more to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. 

  A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. 

  
http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/

  Excerpt:

  The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal.  
Net Neutrality is about regulatory creep.  It's about controlling the 
infrastructure so that the message can be controlled.  It's about things like 
Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to 
control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control 
what is available to the people.  We know this when he stated,

  You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. 
That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over 
network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable 
companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of 
the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from 
control.


  I asked once... about a year ago.   What side is WISPA on?

  I still can't tell.  Are they on the no regulation is needed, get lost! 
bandwagon, or are they on the We welcome the chance to have input on your 
future plans bandwagon?

  The two roads diverged a while back.   

  Which is WISPA on?  


  ++
  Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
  541-969-8200  509-386-4589
  ++



--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband

2011-02-16 Thread Tom DeReggi
Subsidizing the low-cost WISP is not a bad idea. But the thing is thats 
easilly achievable without create monopoly like award systems.

A voucher system solves that. It allows ANY/ALL competitive WISPs and even 
Any Telcos, to have an opportunity to gain subsidee, for affordably 
deploying broadband.

The problem that will arrise is consumers want faster speeds like fiber, and 
will argue incentives should be given to those that offer higher speeds, 
which will unlevel the playing field once a gain.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband


 At 2/13/2011 11:26 AM, Charles Wu wrote:
It looks like a success-based voucher technologically neutral
system for USF Reform/CAF is what's being proposed by the RCA (Rural
Cellular Association)

http://rca-usa.org/press/rca-press-releases/five-things-the-fcc-can-do-to-accelerate-broadband-deployment/914048


Perhaps WISPA should/could partner up with them for a stronger voice?

 It would not do WISPs much good.  Very, very few would qualify as
 ETC, or even want to be ETCs.  RCA is trying to stave off a proposal
 to get rid of competitive ETC support entirely, most of which goes to
 cellular carriers for their fixed-wireless deployments.  Supporting
 RCA seems pointless too, since they would be trying to get the
 exclusive CAF designations in their turf. Given the anti-competitive
 bent of the pending NPRM, expecting to move it towards more
 competition and subsidies to smaller providers seems unrealistic.

 WISP participation might, however, be useful in letting the FCC know
 just how messed up the system is.  WISPs provide service for a much
 lower cost than ETCs, with no subsidies, and don't need subsidized
 competitors putting them otu of business.  And just raising the idea
 of subsidizing low-cost WISPs, as an alternative to the fat RLECs,
 might help push the Overton Window just a little bit more away from
 the monopoly side.

-Charles

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
On Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 11:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Favors Shifting Rural Subsidies To Broadband

We need to have the USF turned into a voucher credit system that the
end user can apply to what ever supplier they chose. Maybe its not
the best idea, but I do not feel I have heard of a better one. Better
for /the users/ not better for the I/CLECs and other
very vested interests.


On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com 
wrote:
  At 2/11/2011 01:06 AM, JohnS wrote:
   The FCC is looking for comments, so we all need to make
   it quite clear that the funds should be available for any and all
   broadband providers!
  
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20110207/tc_nf/77213
  
   Bret
  
 
 
 We should comment. The comment should be that we do not support any
 form of broadband subsidies and that USF should be eliminated. It is a
 New Internet Tax. We should all call it that and get people riled up
 about it.
 
  The FCC can't eliminate USF entirely.  It is statutory:  The Telecom
  Act of 1996 established USF and called for it to keep rural telephone
  rates comparable to urban rates.  Because rural states get two
  senators just like big states, they have undue influence on subsidy
  legislation.  Ted Stevens of Alaska was a leader here; he later
  wanted the FCC to outlaw VoIP, since it threatened the costly toll
  minutes that paid into USF.
 
  The new proposal makes matters worse, though, since it keeps existing
  USF intact and adds yet another fund to allow one provider per place
  to provide subsidized Internet access.  I expect that it will usually
  be the ILEC, getting more money to compete with WISPs.
 

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



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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


Re: [WISPA] IDEAS to help solve the 5 GHz TDWR problem

2011-02-09 Thread Tom DeReggi
I'm pretty sure I'm FCC rule compliant, considering I use Trango Tlink-45s (DFS 
certified), just about everywhere that we use 5.4Ghz. 
I have a lot of 5.4G deployed within a 25 mile radius of DC.  I have chosen not 
to register my links in the TDWR database for a variety of legitimate 
competitive, strategic, and legal reasons, that have nothing to do with FCC 
Compliance.  Currently the DC area appears clean on the radar maps. However, 
should anyone else learn otherwise in the future, let me know, I have an open 
door, and will help if I can. 


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL  Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Shoemaker 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:04 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] IDEAS to help solve the 5 GHz TDWR problem


  I'm close to IAD, DCA, BWI, and ADW. With so many radars in such a small area 
I'd imagine some triangulation could be done. DC is not on the FAA's hotlist 
though...

  Next weather event I will take a look.

-- 
Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com 
  On 2/9/2011 12:32 AM, Jack Unger wrote: 
Here are some ideas to help solve the TDWR interference problems around the 
country and possibly save 110 MHz of spectrum (5570 to 5680 MHz). We may not 
need to physically go to the problem areas because the data is available 
online. Here's what we could do: 

First, I'm attaching an NTIA report about TDWR interference. It contains a 
picture showing what the interference strobe lines look like (see page 7). 
Once you read this report, you will have a good understanding of the problem 
and how to look for interference strobes. 

Second, the TDWR radar outputs can be accessed from 
http://www.wunderground.com/radar/map.asp then select the TDWR radar that you 
want to monitor. The trick is learning how to configure your view of the radar 
to be able to see strobes that are present. It requires tweaking with the 
elevation angle and velocity settings during the presence of actual 
precipitation conditions being displayed on a radar. I've seen strobes myself 
after I've played with the radar settings for a while to see what settings make 
them the most visible. It requires some time for experimentation. 

I'll ask the FCC for updated problem airport information. The last 
reported problem areas were New York, Chicago, Denver, Dallas and San Juan 
Puerto Rico. If we can get a volunteer team in each area to monitor their local 
TDWR during heavy weather, that team can get a general idea of the direction 
that the strobes are coming from. As the attached report indicates, one UNII 
transmitter can cause several, slightly different direction strobes so again, 
it's going to take some practice to figure this out but with practice and 
dedication from local teams, we should be able to track some of these offending 
transmitters down. 

Have a look at the report and experiment with viewing your local radar. 
Once you figure out what radar settings show the strobes best, PLEASE tell the 
rest of us. 

If we put our heads together to address this, we may be able to locate many 
of these interference sources and save the band without needing strict new FCC 
regulations. If you want an email list set up for the team in your area (for 
example, (xxx_area_TDWR_Team), let me know and I'll get the lists set up. 

I think it's worth a try. Who's on board and which TDWR system are you 
near? 

jack 
818-227-4220 






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

--




  

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

   
  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >