Question out of curiosity. What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
between a couple major cities? Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
How many Gigabit typically? I know it likely varies and there will be
multiple routes but I was looking for an educated guesstimate. I
imagine there would
OC 192?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Matt lm7...@gmail.com
Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 14:51:15
To: WISPA General Listwireless@wispa.org
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Internet Backbone
On 20 December 2010 15:51, Matt lm7...@gmail.com wrote:
Question out of curiosity. What does Tier1 carrier have for bandwidth
between a couple major cities? Say between Chicago and St. Louis?
How many Gigabit typically? I know it likely varies and there will be
multiple routes but I was
Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away and
dealt with it decently.
Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a 100KW
20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW channel 39 I
think.
Anyone have gear running close to this
What gear are you running?
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet
away and dealt with it decently.
Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to
It's good to see all our efforts pay off.
REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55
WASHINGTON - The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt
Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful
content, but allow high-speed Internet providers
2 Trango 11Ghz Apex's
3 Ubiquiti Rocket M5 sectors
3 Ubiquiti Rocket M2 sectors
1 Nanostation M5
3 Rocket M5s with 34db dishes
2 Radwin 2000C's
Scott Carullo
Technical Operations
855-FLSPEED x102
From: Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com
Sent: Monday, December
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
Ok, I've dealt with up to about 20KW on FM transmitter 20 feet away
and dealt with it decently.
Now I'm told one of our installs of gear on a tower is about to get a
100KW 20ft above my gear and a TV antenna 20ft below it at 700KW
channel 39
There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a
separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF
intensity
decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet and
20
feet goes into 300 feet 15 times so the RF intensity at
True...good advice.
On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a
separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF
intensity
decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet
I know everyone here monitors FOX... ;-)
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/20/fcc-vote-internet-regulation-plan
-despite-economic-warnings/
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a
separation distance of 100 yards. Remember the inverse-square law - RF
intensity
decreases as the SQUARE of the separation distance. 100 yards is 300 feet and
20
feet goes
I have an fm antenna (low power) on the tower where I am at at about 35 feet
above me and I have a CPE on an FM backup antenna with no problems. This is
Axxcelera 3.65 wimax. Shielded cable with good grounds. No need for ferrite
beads so far.
Sent from my iPhone4
On Dec 20, 2010, at 5:31 PM,
Filtering is pretty moot when you consider they are in plastic housings
with no significant shielding :-)
-B-
On 12/20/2010 6:31 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote:
On 12/20/2010 05:56 PM, Jack Unger wrote:
There is QUITE a difference between a separation distance of 20 ft and a
separation
No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power.It is
not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get partial exemption.
I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
As far as I'm concerned it's come and arrest me, coppers and I will
While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be
forcably broken apart
Yes it is!
Victoria Proffer - President/CEO
www.ShowMeBroadband.com
www.StLouisBroadband.com
314-974-5600
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Fiero
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 4:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA]
Of course I agree that no regulation would be preferable, but when you see
the train coming and you know you can't stop it, you are glad to find that
you can lie between the tracks and let it pass over you.
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf
Yeah, external filters are not an option for me. They are going to work
or...
The Trango and Radwin equipment may have a chance. I'm not really giving
the UBNT stuff a chance at all. Am I being too pessimistic? Its the
ethernet I've had the most problems with in the past, not the radios
I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs
the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a
broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the first
place.
Tier1 providers between cities... 40-80GB.
Once long haul dark fiber is purchased, why limit it, when the tier1 can
just put in the biggest optical router offered.
The larger reseller blended transit providers serving colos typically are
buying 10GB connections, and breaking them up..
Tom
'Dude'... get a grip.. get out of this business, get some sanity into
your life... this kind of stress is not good...
Just imagine how Alexander Graham Bell felt when the Gov. decided to
regulate the Phone Company !
Fact of life... when a service starts to become a crucial / critical for
At 12/20/2010 07:30 PM, MDK wrote:
No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the
power.It is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get
partial exemption.
I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this.
As far as I'm concerned it's come
At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote:
While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue
with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1
At 12/20/2010 08:36 PM, MDK wrote:
I am opposed to ALL aspects, period. Nothing is broken such that it needs
the atomic bomb of government to fix it.
This is a fix in desperate search of a broken and the closest thing to a
broken they can find is a hypothetical that isn't a disaster in the
Multiple 10 Gig. Cogent has no less than 8 of them everywhere. Some
carriers, some routes, I'd say no less than 150 Gig. Some have
multiple 40 gig channels. Within a year, it'll be multiple 100Gig.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 12/20/2010
I'd have to agree with Mark. Its my network, my money. Get the hell
out. When I accept government money or protections, sure, tell me what
to do. Otherwise...
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 12/20/2010 8:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
'Dude'...
Faisal, with all due respect, (and you know I do) - Mark is right. We are
not phone companys. We are PRIVATE, independent companys
with volunteer subscribers. Are you saying we have already lost? The fact
that we are even having to have this conversation in the land of the free
is sad.
BTW: I dont
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/20/2010 06:52 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote:
While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
like to knwo what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/20/2010 04:56 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed)
wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would
like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a
Charles, I know that you are aware of this but it's worth repeating - there
is a huge difference between regulated telephone companys and unregulated
ISP's. As I'm sure you are also well aware of - the phone cos get lots of
subsidy money, ISP's dont. So why compare them?
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at
31 matches
Mail list logo
