The ePMP does in the US??? John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi http://www.delmarvawifi.com cell (410) 708-1937
-----Original Message----- From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:40pm To: "af" <af@afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP I think they did that to stop you from lying about the antenna size and running at illegal power... like people do with ubnt radios. okay, I was just playing around with it a bit, it does let me set TX all the way up to 30db in 5.8ghz if you set it to point-to-point mode. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM, John Woodfield <[ john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz ]( mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz )> wrote: No. I had this discussion last night off-list. Let me back up, you can't max it out with low-gain antennas. You can compensate the low TX power with higher gain antennas. Unfortunately they don't account for lower gain antennas or wire loss... John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi [ http://www.delmarvawifi.com ]( http://www.delmarvawifi.com ) cell [ (410) 708-1937 ]( tel:%28410%29%20708-1937 ) -----Original Message----- From: "Adam Moffett" <[ dmmoff...@gmail.com ]( mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com )> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 12:06pm To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP Probably not. These are near future rules, not "right now" rules. Can you not max out the legal limits with ePMP? Is this why the power is so limited in the US ePMP gear and not UBNT? John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi [ http://www.delmarvawifi.com ]( http://www.delmarvawifi.com ) cell [ (410) 708-1937 ]( tel:%28410%29%20708-1937 ) -----Original Message----- From: "Mark Radabaugh" [ <m...@amplex.net> ]( mailto:m...@amplex.net ) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 11:23am To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP The new rules don’t prohibit high power operation in 5.8, they limit the out of band emission into 5.4 to such extreme levels that it’s very difficult to get the equipment to pass certification. I wish I could recall exactly what the numbers are but the gist of it was that if you take a currently legal 5.8 radio with a high gain antenna and point it at a TDWR site, the out of band emissions inside the TDWR band can still be high enough to cause an issue. The result being that the FCC imposed much stricter limits on the OOB emissions thus making the equipment either much more expensive or requiring power reductions in the 5730-5850 section of the band. Mark On Jan 22, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Mathew Howard <[ mhoward...@gmail.com ]( mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com )> wrote: Are you sure about that? I thought they were still operating under the old rules for 5.8ghz... everything in 5150-5250 already has to use the new rules (which MImosa does), but my understanding is that the new rules would basically limit 5.8ghz to what 5.1ghz is doing now, and on a Mimosa B5 (integrated) I can set the Tx power to 17db in 5.8ghz, but only 7db in 5.1ghz. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:35 AM, Rory Conaway <[ r...@triadwireless.net ]( mailto:r...@triadwireless.net )> wrote: The Mimosa B5’s already meet the current spec that the FCC proposed. The problem is that the rules were like using a hammer to break an egg. Rory From: Af [mailto:[ af-boun...@afmug.com ]( mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com )] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:28 AM To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP My worry would be that manufacturers decide the redesign effort, higher prices, and lower performance makes the WISP market not worthwhile and they just walk away and don’t make long range equipment for the 5 GHz band. And decide the money is in small cell WiFi equipment, for the guys who wanted the rules change. The other possible outcome is manufacturers sell equipment authorized for low gain antennas but that can be operated illegally with high gain antennas, leaving WISPs with the choice of going out of business or operating illegally. Kind of a Walter White choice. It’s good to hear the manufacturers are developing a proposal that will hopefully appease the FCC and FAA, I assume they are proposing something they believe they can actually design, manufacture and sell to the WISP market. From: [ John Woodfield ]( mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz ) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:53 AM To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP But will they enforce it with all the amateurs running around throwing up UBNT stuff everywhere? Its gotten really bad around here. Nobody even bothers to do spectrum analysis. Heck the county government starting throwing up rocket dishes at full power blasting 40mhz channels all over the place... John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi [ http://www.delmarvawifi.com ]( http://www.delmarvawifi.com/ ) cell [ (410) 708-1937 ]( tel:%28410%29%20708-1937 ) -----Original Message----- From: "Adam Moffett" <[ dmmoff...@gmail.com ]( mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com )> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:49am To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP Oh you missed that? Out of band emissions limits will be based on EIRP instead of Tx power. So a linksys router with a 3db antenna probably doesn't have to change anything, but anything with big panels/dishes/sectors has to reduce their OOB emissions accordingly. The end result is staying legal in 5ghz will require expensive filters added to the equipment, or a reduction in tx power, or a reduction in antenna gain, or a combination of the three. I think that's about the size of it. Ok What did I miss. New 5ghz rules??? John Woodfield Delmarva WiFi [ http://www.delmarvawifi.com ]( http://www.delmarvawifi.com/ ) cell [ (410) 708-1937 ]( tel:%28410%29%20708-1937 ) -----Original Message----- From: "Ken Hohhof" [ mailto:af...@kwisp.com ]( mailto:af...@kwisp.com ) Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 9:28am To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP So did all you folks stop worrying about the 5 GHz rules? They are already a done deal, the end of new equipment authorization is coming soon, to be followed by end of sale. Seems like this is as big an issue if not bigger than having to pay into USF which, let's face it, we just turn around and add as a below-the-line charge on customer bills. Customers have already proved they don't pay attention to below-the-line charges, plus all the competition would be doing it as well. The main downside I see is if they increase the size of the CAF fund and our big competition gets even more subsidies to overbuild us. -----Original Message----- From: Rory Conaway Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:14 AM To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP You should change it to, "when required by corrupt, geriatric, ignorant, and moronic government politicians". There is no question why Obama is pushing this, he is an ideological idiot with absolutely no management or economic skills. Add to that his feelings are hurt that the rest of the country is now seeing him for the egomaniac immature child that he is. Wheeler is now just trying to keep his job temporarily but I guarantee is trying to find a way out of this that preserves his lobbying business. The second he can get out, preserve his reputation, and probably not let his boss destroy the country and his future/former clients any further economically than he already has, including the 1200 new regulations taking effect now that will cost at least $200B this year alone, he's gone. All I know is I didn't go far enough with my Tom Wheeler article. Obama blindsided me on his need to destroy another industry and make government bigger. Rory -----Original Message----- From: Af [[ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ]( mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com )] On Behalf Of Bill Prince Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 10:21 PM To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] the future of being an ISP We have always had the disclaimer in our service agreement that it would include taxes/surcharges if/when required by the government. Doesn't make it taste any better, but it covers the reality. bp <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> On 1/21/2015 6:23 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > On 1/21/15 18:07, Rory Conaway wrote: >> I think we need to tell every single customer why the rates went up. >> There is another election in 2 years. >> > > > Your rates aren't going up. The explanation to the customer is simple: > "the total bill is higher because the government added a new tax. The > pre-tax price of service hasn't changed. We're not making any money > off this, if anything it adds more overhead to collect it. If you're > unhappy with this tax then call/write your representatives in congress." > > ~Seth
