Yes, shotguns with slugs are involved! DA BEARS ;)
On Jun 12, 2015 6:35 AM, Mike Hammett <af...@ics-il.net> wrote: > > Reasonable network management in Alaska could have a different measure than > Chicago, given costs. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:36:53 -0500 (CDT) > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, > insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, > applications, services, or nonharmful devices, /subject to reasonable > network management//./ > > A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, > insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful > Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or > service, or use of a non-harmful device, /subject to reasonable network > management.// > / > source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf > > "Your honor/<insert title>, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each > customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we > very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use > while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless > network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless > networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often > other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that > individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the > matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the > content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the /reasonable > network management/ clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can > allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several > hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy > handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific > type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of > fixed wireless equipment to "harden" and redesign their equipment when > and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of > traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no > complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously > until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or > called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P > traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for > free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to > the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a > negative impact on other subscribers." > > ... just a brief snippet :P > > Josh Reynolds > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > www.spitwspots.com > > On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to > > do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: > > https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf > > *From:* Hass, Douglas A. <mailto:d...@franczek.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM > > *To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> > > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > > > I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has > > the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. > > > > El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com> escribió: > > You're a lawyer now? :) > > > > For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. > > > > Josh Reynolds > > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > > www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com><http://www.spitwspots.com> > > > > On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. > > > > If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network > > management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. > > > > Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for > > justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in > > something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. > > > > As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, > > rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would > > go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. > > > > My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing > > complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the > > likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John > > Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the > > complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, > > I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to > > receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but > > maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI > > complaints if you file Form 499. > > > > The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to > > complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not > > exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate > > content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method > > and not have a cow over it. > > > > > > From: Josh Reynolds<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms > > who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not > > going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm > > not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that > > subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a > > contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. > > > > Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. > > > > Josh Reynolds > > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > > www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com><http://www.spitwspots.com> > > > > On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting > > stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. > > > > Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? > > > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 3 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds > > <j...@spitwspots.com<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> wrote: > > And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less > > than 3 Communications Lawyers > > > > Josh Reynolds > > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > > www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com><http://www.spitwspots.com> > > > > On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > And you can legally do it until this Friday. > > > > From: Josh Reynolds<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > > > We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for > > over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and > > its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint > > because of it. > > > > On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: > > Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have > > to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett > > <af...@ics-il.net<mailto:af...@ics-il.net>> wrote: > > Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. > > > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "Paul McCall" <pa...@pdmnet.net<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > > > Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, > > > > > > > > And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the > > distribution method? > > > > > > > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On > > Behalf Of Rory Conaway > > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > > > > > If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios > > drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch > > the modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop > > as the CPU load goes up. > > > > > > > > Rory > > > > > > > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On > > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > > > > > PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM > > radio can do 20+. > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince > > <part15...@gmail.com<mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it > > may be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of > > one in SM role. > > > > [X] > > > > > > bp > > > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > > > > > > On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > > > SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it > > way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is > > definitely all XM gear. > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway > > <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote: > > > > I would have to se your data, mine does not support that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > > > > > Rory Conaway > > > > Triad Wireless > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Josh Luthman > > <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> > > Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less? > > > > > > > > > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway > > <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote: > > > > To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity > > in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects > > modulation levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the > > threshold is just higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going > > to be close. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > > > > > Rory Conaway > > > > Triad Wireless > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > > From: Rory Conaway <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> > > Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take > > into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that > > are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy > > and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, > > why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you > > understand my point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > > > > > Rory Conaway > > > > Triad Wireless > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> > > Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea > > what you are talking about right now. > > > > What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and > > ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in > > terms of efficiency. > > > > This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories > > on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into > > this discussion. > > > > On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway > > <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote: > > > > Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if > > you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > > > > > Rory Conaway > > > > Triad Wireless > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> > > Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small > > ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a > > noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing > > connected on the other side of the radios. > > > > Its an efficiency issue. > > > > On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard > > <mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you > > from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel > > could support. > > > > Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than > > 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was > > doing anything close to what it would with a good link. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds > > <j...@spitwspots.com<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> wrote: > > > > That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this > > discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel > > efficiency per say. > > > > On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway > > <r...@triadwireless.net<mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>> wrote: > > > > The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of > > small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In > > the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with > > eveything g taken into account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > > > > > Rory Conaway > > > > Triad Wireless > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Josh Reynolds <j...@spitwspots.com<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> > > Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out > > of some on this list ;) > > > > On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy > > <jeremysmi...@gmail.com<mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M > > series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the > > processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz > > actually work better. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman > > <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote: > > > > Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. > > > > Josh Luthman > > Office: 937-552-2340 > > Direct: 937-552-2343 > > 1100 Wayne St > > Suite 1337 > > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, "Josh Reynolds" > > <j...@spitwspots.com<mailto:j...@spitwspots.com>> wrote: > > > > I don't know how epmp does it. > > > > For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a "fat" 20mhz channel in the atheros > > chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, > > meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also > > marred by the lack of gigabit port. > > > > On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard > > <mhoward...@gmail.com<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series > > between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... > > but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a > > faster processor and on a software level they are very different. > > > > So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and > > PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. > > I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun > > <sleb...@muskoka.com<mailto:sleb...@muskoka.com>> wrote: > > > > I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel > > works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels > > bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On > > Behalf Of Rory Conaway > > Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some > > things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not > > scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz > > channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of > > factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz > > channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to > > deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a > > percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well > > (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to > > deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz > > now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with > > some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak > > times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. > > > > Rory > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On > > Behalf Of Craig House > > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM > > To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com> > > > > Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those > > towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are > > configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all > > ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front > > back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I > > have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer > > stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind > > of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the > > uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten > > better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB > > -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as > > .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it > > interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with > > noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the > > ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest > > link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 > > signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a > > bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change > > everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all > > on the same channel? > > I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are > > adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just > > applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? > > > > Craig > > > > > > *Douglas A. Hass* > > Associate > > 312.786.6502 > > d...@franczek.com > > > > *Franczek Radelet P.C.* > > > > 300 South Wacker Drive > > Suite 3400 > > Chicago, IL 60606 > > 312.986.0300 - Main > > 312.986.9192 - Fax > > www.franczek.com > > www.wagehourinsights.com > > Connect with me: > > linkedin <http://linkedin.com/in/douglashass> > > > > twitter <https://twitter.com/WageHourInsight> > > > > > > /Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal > > Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated > > otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication > > (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and > > cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the > > Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to > > another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. / > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit > > franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any > > attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only > > for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient > > of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > > distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is > > strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, > > please contact the sender and delete all copies. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the > > environment before printing this email/ > >
