Re: [WISPA] Billing Solution

[John Vogel]

we use and are very happy with Billmax.


On Jan 17, 2018 1:07 PM, "Brian Rohrbacher"  wrote:

> What do we got out there for billing solutions?  My current one is not
> working out.  I've been using Freeside for a number of years now and I
> liked it but they don't have any support staff left and seem to be
> falling apart.  I've been constantly requesting an SSL renewal for 45
> days and they just can't get it done.  It's beyond frustrating, time
> consuming and embarrassing try to explain to hundreds of customers why
> my payment site is not secure.  I can't take it anymore.  I need some
> recommendations on whats out there.  I want good support.  I need a
> solution with support.  What's everybody using?  What do you like and
> dislike about it?
>
>
> Brian
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
> ___
> 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] need Nanobridge Dishes / Hardware

[John Vogel]

I am in need of hardware kits (18db dish, mounting brackets, ubolts 
etc.) for Nanobridge M2s. I know I have seen posts where some of you are 
accumulating these things. I am short. Need about 50 or so...

Hit me off-list with pricing if you can help.
Thanks!

--
John Vogel - President
JMZ Corporation - dba KwiKom Communications
http://kwikom.com/  620-365-7782
jvo...@vogent.net



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

Re: [WISPA] DMCA Takedown

[John Vogel]

 – Follow me on Twitter
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Andy Trimmell
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List
>> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:16:47 -0400
>> To: WISPA General List
>> 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/
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>


-- 
John Vogel - President
KwiKom Communications
(620) 365-7782




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] ASR Sign Requirements

[John Vogel]

The only official language that I am aware of is contained in 47 C.F.R. 
17.4 (g) and (h). I think there is a synopsis included on the Reference 
copy of your ASR registration.


(g) Except as described in paragraph (h) of this section, the Antenna 
Structure Registration Number must be displayed in a conspicuous place 
so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna structure.

Materials used to display the Antenna Structure Registration Number must 
be weather-resistant and of sufficient size to be easily seen at the 
base of the antenna structure.

   (h) The owner is not required to post the Antenna Structure 
Registration Number in cases where a federal, state, or local government 
entity provides written notice to the owner that such a posting would 
detract from the appearance of a historic landmark. In this case, the 
owner must make the Antenna Structure Registration Number available to 
representatives of the Commission, the FAA, and the general public upon 
reasonable demand.

Read more: < 
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/17-4-antenna-structure-19844476#ixzz1EDhuqS9Q >

John Vogel


On 2/17/2011 12:08 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
> I own a registered tower site that I bought from another ASR registrant.
> We have made all needed changes to the ASR records online showing proper
> ownership information. We still need to prepare the physical sign
> required at the location. I cannot seem to find the page on the ASR site
> that describes the requirements of the sign at the registered tower
> location. Can anyone send me the link to this information or even
> forward a doc with this data? Any help is greatly appreciated.
> John Scrivner
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Flaky connection

[John Vogel]

Make sure the client radio is getting enough voltage? I have seen 
similar things happen that were fixed with a higher voltage/amperage 
power supply. Does this install have a long cable run or anything 
different than the others that might affect the input power?

--John

On 12/18/2010 7:46 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> I see the association go away not matter what else is going on.
>
> On 12/18/2010 6:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> Ping across, see if it works all the time.
>>
>> See where the issue is first.
>>
>> On Dec 18, 2010 6:28 PM, "Scott Reed" > > wrote:
>> > I have a new customer that is giving us fits.
>> > AP and CPE are both RouterOS with SR9.
>> > 11 Clients on the AP, this is the only one with problems.
>> > I checked it several times today and it was running signal strength -65
>> > both ways and CCQ was always above 90, often saw 100. Customer said the
>> > performance was great.
>> > I called at dusk to say it quit working. It did not work over night
>> > last night, either. It will now connect with signals in the mid-60s and
>> > CCQ in the 70s. Never stays linked more than 15 seconds. Takes about 2
>> > seconds for it to come back.
>> > The rest of the client radios are staying connected just fine. Signals
>> > from -56 to -72. CCQs are all 75+ when there is traffic on the link.
>> > Any suggestions?
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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/
>
> --
> 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] Backend systems

[John Vogel]

We just recently switched to Freeside from Platypus. One of the reasons 
was to give more control over integration. Although the biggest 
complaint I had with Plat was that it took 10 clicks to get to the 
information I wanted...

With Freeside, we have it set up to add entries into FreeRadius, assign 
IP addresses, and when it comes time to suspend, send that IP address to 
our walled-garden. Cancelling a customer releases the IP address, 
removes the radius entries, unprovisions email addresses, etc. All of 
this accomplished from within Freeside. Also have Freeside set up to 
provision email addresses on two different mail servers (one of which is 
a legacy system we are maintaining because it would be too much work at 
the moment to transition all of those users to the server we want to use 
going forward), have part of the self-service server provided by 
Freeside so that users can manage their own email accounts (reset 
passwords, provision email addresses for themselves up to the limit 
included with their account, etc

With some of the stuff I have planned, Freeside will be central to 
virtually every aspect of customer management and provisioning. I am not 
sure how I would have accomplished it with Platypus, but believe it will 
be accomplished with Freeside.

I think Freeside gives us much more control. It is not a piece of cake 
though. I do wish there was better (read... some) documentation. 
Although I do have to give credit to Kristian, one of the authors of 
Freeside, who answered questions I posted to a public list well enough 
to get me on the right track with a couple of issues.

Platypus is an amazing piece of software, just didnt allow me to do 
things the way I wanted them done. I think if you are willing to do them 
the way Platypus wants, you may be OK.

-- 
John




On 12/2/2010 5:00 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> The problem I have with Radius is that you have no way to shut them
> off.  You would have to change the profile (easy) and have the device
> reauthenticate (not as easy).
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Jason Hensley  wrote:
>> Thought I would just chime back in a little bit on this subject:
>>
>>
>>
>> No experience with Powercode, but with Platypus we can do RADIUS (PPPoE)
>> authentication and control the profiles from within Platypus with account
>> types, assign the appropriate rate limiting, static IP addresses, etc etc –
>> everything controlled within Platypus.  Took a little tweaking to get this
>> to work with VOP RADIUS and Mikrotik, but we made it happen (had more to do
>> with Mikrotik and VOP than it did Platypus though).  Probably going to move
>> to FreeRadius sometime soon as VOPRadius is no longer a supported product.
>> We’re integrated with ModusMail as well, so all email management is within
>> Platypus.  We have been using Wombat for quite some time and love it.
>> Fantastic that it’s now going to be an integrated part of Platypus.  Had a
>> little learning curve at first, but the last revision of it made it WAY more
>> user friendly.  Using IPPay now for CC billing – integrated into Platypus.
>> We use Tucows / Platypus for paper statements – click three buttons and our
>> printing is sent off for us at VERY reasonable rates.
>>
>>
>>
>> Monitoring is still not there within Plat though, but I have a feeling it’s
>> just a matter of time.  We’ve also had difficulty getting Plat to do
>> everything we want with our web hosting customers from within Plat itself,
>> but it’s not that big of a deal to do the things we need to do manually for
>> our size web hosting operation.  If we had hundreds of customers we’d
>> integrate with a control panel that works with Platypus as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Online customer pages, online staff use pages, online knowledgebase, and
>> more – all integrated with Platypus.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope all this info helps out a little bit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mark Nash
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:03 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Backend systems
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL that reminds me of Beavis&  Butthead, where all things in the world are
>> lumped into two categories: "This RULES" and "THIS SUCKS".
>>
>> Tony, your network may be much bigger than mine so billing problems show up
>> more frequently, but, IMHO, billing is alright, not great, not perfect, just
>> good.  It's not an accounting package, and our bookkeeper seems to get what
>> she needs out of it to do the books every month.
>>
>> About half of my customers pay with a check, and we put it in through
>> Powercode, so I think your comment about "forget it in powercode" is a
>> little extreme.
>>
>> On 12/2/2010 1:00 PM, Tony C. Loosle wrote:
>>
>> Powercode may be great with the BMU, but as for a billing system is really
>> sucks!
>>
>>
>>
>> F

Re: [WISPA] Taking the plunge

[John Vogel]

 Can the UBNT co-exist with MT APs in the same environment or will the
UBNT wipe out all other 802.11x based APs on nearby channels within
hearing distance?

On 9/13/2010 1:10 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
> >From personal experience I can tell you that you will be very happy
> when you make the switch.  I just replaced three Mikrotik BH/AP units,
> pings went from their rather wild 30-120ms swings to a steady 15ms no
> matter what time.  Just be ready for three things, you can't put
> usernames in the ACL like Mikrotik, there is less routing because UBNT
> expects filtering to be done in your router before their equipment,
> and it will never go down because it's just a transparent bridge so
> traffic that would have overwhelmed Mikrotik equipment and crashed the
> LAN port won't happen on Ubiquity.  Oh and you're right, I've found
> that if you use dual-polarity you can't mix that with non-dual and
> connections with non-, its far better to have all Airmax running
> rather than a mix, this means replacing CPE so that all customers on
> that tower are the same equipment, spendy (relative to UBNT's low
> cost) but worth it.
>
> Forbes Mercy
> Washington Broadband
>
> On 9/13/2010 10:31 AM, Steve Barnes wrote:
>>
>> All my APs are Mikrotik. My CPE’s are a mix of Tranzeo and UBNT.   I
>> have a AP with 58 Clients on it and starting to get complaints about
>> slowdowns.  They are all setup 10 MHz channel 802.11g.  This is a
>> tower that due to contractual issues I cannot add anymore equipment. 
>> So I am considering taking down the Mikrotik and 120 degree sector
>> and putting up a UBNT Rocket and Airmax 120 sector.  It will take
>> time to physically switch all my clients to new UBNT Airmax equipment
>> but would like to get it done before the snow flies. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Has anyone down this?  Success?  I know I cannot turn on Airmax till
>> everyone is on the UBNT with that capability but does it work fine
>> till you get it on?
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Steve Barnes*
>>
>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Strange problem

[John Vogel]

Could it be related to this?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233

John

richard sterne wrote:
> Older versions of Windows work fine.
>
> Richard
>
>
> 
> 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] More FCC news

[John Vogel]

I found this interesting.




"The US Federal Communications Commission is considering a plan that
would reclaim some precious airwaves from the country's television
broadcasters and reinvent them as wireless broadband.

According to the /Wall Street Journal/
,
the FCC intends to release the plan on Friday as part of an effort to
ensure that there's enough wireless bandwidth for the America [/sic/] of
the future. "The record is very clear that we're facing a looming
spectrum gap," said Blair Levin, who oversees the plan, part of a wider
push to expand US broadband.

The plan would involve the FCC buying spectrum back from TV folk and
then auctioning it off to wireless folk.

The FCC has already opened up the television "white spaces" as
unlicensed spectrum, hoping to create a kind of "WiFi on steroids
."
But the new plan creates vast swathes of licensed wireless broadband,
providing more bandwidth for the likes of AT&T and Verizon."





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] Verizon fiber

[John Vogel]

John Vogel wrote:
> I was told that I needed to be in the $30k/month range before the
> long-haul provider I was talking to would consider giving me a port
> here  So close, but yet so far.
>
> John
Note: I didn't ask, but I kind of assumed that meant a commit to  1GE @
$30/mbps...  Do you suppose that was a reasonable assumption?

John



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] Verizon fiber

[John Vogel]

I was told that I needed to be in the $30k/month range before the
long-haul provider I was talking to would consider giving me a port
here  So close, but yet so far.

John

Kevin Neal wrote:
> I was recently quoted $300,000 to break into a long-haul fiber route
> (not Verizon), that was to cover the bulk of the equipment costs to
> break in and then they could give me a good rate per megabyte.
>
> -Kevin
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 8:50 PM, John Valenti  wrote:
>   
>> I'm assuming this is hopeless, but somebody here can probably confirm:
>>
>> Verizon has fiber running down the dirt road that passes by a grain
>> leg I'm using. (I'm told it was put in for 911 service to Bath, MI)
>> Is it possible to have them tap into it and sell bulk bandwidth to
>> me?  For less than 10s of thousand$?
>>
>> If it helps, there is a small concrete vault nearby that the fiber
>> runs thru. The farmer says the cover has been left open on that for
>> years. You can look in and see a metal can (about 8" by 2') that the
>> fiber runs thru.
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Would like to purchase some RF glasses...

[John Vogel]

The terrain between the AP and the CPE is such that I would ordinarily
consider it a slam-dunk. Standing there on the ground next to the house
and looking at the (almost) clear view of the tower, with nothing in
between that I would consider to be capable of creating multi-path
reflections, my thought is that there is no way for this link to not
work. heh...

That being said, my experience with multi-path is that you may get wild
fluctuations in RSSI, or you may get great signal, but lots of dropped
packets. But you still get signal. In this case, at that particular
elevation, nothing. Like something is completely blocking the signal,
not that you are getting the signal from multiple directions. It's like
there is a dead zone from 14.5 feet AGL to about 16 ft. AGL. And that
tree isn't very big.

The only thing comparable I have experienced is with a wireless security
camera that was broadcasting enough signal that the CPE wasn't able to
hear the AP, but I know of nothing within 1/2 mile of this house that
could be generating any significant amount of signal.

John

Scott Reed wrote:
> Or the tree is no longer blocking multi-path interference.
>
> Jayson Baker wrote:
>   
>> Multipath interference from the tree.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, John Vogel  wrote:
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> So... I have a customer, been on for a couple of years now. The CPE on
>>> their home quit working. I go to check it out, log into the CPE from
>>> their computer, everything looks good, except that a scan for AP's shows
>>> only the linksys router they have in the house. This is a MT411 with an
>>> R52 card in it, with a 14dB panel enclosure. I assume the radio card
>>> quit receiving or a bad pigtail, so I go retrieve the unit from the
>>> mount, which is about 15 feet AGL (mounted on the facia at the peak of
>>> the gabled end of the house). I have my bucket truck parked just below
>>> where the unit was mounted, so I am standing just about straight under
>>> where the CPE had been when I take it apart to check it out.
>>>
>>> First thing I notice when disassembling the unit is that the SMA
>>> connector was pretty loose, so just for kicks, I tighten it down and
>>> boot it up. I have my laptop right there at the back of the truck, so I
>>> am powering it off of the truck and can log into it standing right
>>> there. I can see the tower my AP's are on, just one lonely tree between
>>> me and it, about a half mile away and it doesn't have any leaves on it
>>> anymore (the tower is about 3 miles away). I can sometimes pick up the
>>> tower directly from my laptop, so this link is a piece of cake, right?
>>> So after tightening the SMA connector, and booting up the unit, I pick
>>> it up and point it in the general direction of the tower. It links up.
>>> -84 to -86 RSSI.  So, even though I didn't really think the SMA
>>> connector being loose had been the problem, it must have been. So I
>>> re-mount the unit up where it had been. Log into it, and... nothing.
>>> Scans for AP's show nothing except the linksys. While I am up there, I
>>> can see about 80% of the water tower the AP's are on, that one lonely,
>>> straggly, leafless little tree is technically denying me LOS, but, this
>>> link worked all through the summer just fine, when that one tree had
>>> leaves on it. But, no AP's showing in the scan.
>>>
>>> Maybe I knocked something loose, or there is a problem with the power
>>> supply coming from the injector inside the house. So I grab my cable
>>> from the truck, and plug it in (powering the unit off the truck now) and
>>> try again. Still nothing. So I go back up, get the #...@! thing, and bring
>>> it back down to take it apart again. While coming back down, about
>>> halfway down I can see the laptop on the back of the truck, and winbox
>>> says that the radio (which isn't even pointing at the tower now) is
>>> associated to the tower. Go back up, and find that if I hold the radio
>>> at the exact elevation I had it mounted at, a scan won't even SEE the
>>> AP, much less associate to it. If I raise it about 18 inches, I get an
>>> -84, same thing with lowering it 18 inches. I get -84 to -86.  Moving
>>> side to side, same thing. At the elevation the mount is at, nothing.
>>> higher or lower, no problem.
>>>
>>> BTW, there are actually 3 120 degree sectors on the tower, and under
>>> normal circumstances, I can pick up all three of them. Standing on the
>>> ground, I get two of them. Wher

[WISPA] Would like to purchase some RF glasses...

[John Vogel]

So... I have a customer, been on for a couple of years now. The CPE on
their home quit working. I go to check it out, log into the CPE from
their computer, everything looks good, except that a scan for AP's shows
only the linksys router they have in the house. This is a MT411 with an
R52 card in it, with a 14dB panel enclosure. I assume the radio card
quit receiving or a bad pigtail, so I go retrieve the unit from the
mount, which is about 15 feet AGL (mounted on the facia at the peak of
the gabled end of the house). I have my bucket truck parked just below
where the unit was mounted, so I am standing just about straight under
where the CPE had been when I take it apart to check it out.

First thing I notice when disassembling the unit is that the SMA
connector was pretty loose, so just for kicks, I tighten it down and
boot it up. I have my laptop right there at the back of the truck, so I
am powering it off of the truck and can log into it standing right
there. I can see the tower my AP's are on, just one lonely tree between
me and it, about a half mile away and it doesn't have any leaves on it
anymore (the tower is about 3 miles away). I can sometimes pick up the
tower directly from my laptop, so this link is a piece of cake, right? 
So after tightening the SMA connector, and booting up the unit, I pick
it up and point it in the general direction of the tower. It links up.
-84 to -86 RSSI.  So, even though I didn't really think the SMA
connector being loose had been the problem, it must have been. So I
re-mount the unit up where it had been. Log into it, and... nothing.
Scans for AP's show nothing except the linksys. While I am up there, I
can see about 80% of the water tower the AP's are on, that one lonely,
straggly, leafless little tree is technically denying me LOS, but, this
link worked all through the summer just fine, when that one tree had
leaves on it. But, no AP's showing in the scan.

Maybe I knocked something loose, or there is a problem with the power
supply coming from the injector inside the house. So I grab my cable
from the truck, and plug it in (powering the unit off the truck now) and
try again. Still nothing. So I go back up, get the #...@! thing, and bring
it back down to take it apart again. While coming back down, about
halfway down I can see the laptop on the back of the truck, and winbox
says that the radio (which isn't even pointing at the tower now) is
associated to the tower. Go back up, and find that if I hold the radio
at the exact elevation I had it mounted at, a scan won't even SEE the
AP, much less associate to it. If I raise it about 18 inches, I get an
-84, same thing with lowering it 18 inches. I get -84 to -86.  Moving
side to side, same thing. At the elevation the mount is at, nothing. 
higher or lower, no problem.

BTW, there are actually 3 120 degree sectors on the tower, and under
normal circumstances, I can pick up all three of them. Standing on the
ground, I get two of them. Where the radio had been mounted, nothing.

This isn't a LOS issue, so I start looking for interference. MT reports
a noise floor of about -98, but I ask the customer if they have any
wireless stuff they might have added recently. Nothing.  There is a
tractor and stock trailer parked across the yard, below LOS when the
radio is up on the mount, and impeding LOS if I am standing on the
ground. The stock trailer has a sheet-metal roof. Could that be
reflecting signal somewhere? Customer says the stock trailer has been
there all summer though. I think I remember it being there too.

After spending an hour and a half pulling my hair out, it is starting to
get dark, so I decide to temporarily set the radio on a tripod on the
ground so they can have internet overnight and I'll come back tomorrow
and try to figure this out. Interestingly enough, the best signal I can
get with the radio on the tripod is when I move it to a point where the
tractor and stock trailer are completely blocking LOS. I get -83 there.
-85 when I move it to a point where I can actually see the tower.

Anybody have a link to RF glasses?

John



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] Gotta Have

[John Vogel]

I just use an old chain saw file. Lots of those around here. About a
foot long, pointed on one end. Going through a wall, I drill the hole
about the same size as the cat5, jam the pointed end of the file in the
end of the cat5, then push through the hole. Works great! I did have to
learn to keep a few extra files in the truck though. I seem to have a
difficult time keeping track of them.

John

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> At a welding shop.  I took a hunk of cat5 cable in and found a welding rod 
> that JUST fit inside it.  (pull the outer insulation out .5" or so)
>
> I had to grind a point on both ends and also "rough" up the wire so that it 
> would "stick" inside the cable better.  Took a few tries to get right but 
> now that I have it nailed down it's soo cool.  I don't have to drill a 
> bigger hole.  I don't have to fight with the drill flutes to find the hole 
> in the end of the drill bit.  It doesn't take two people (one to pull the 
> other to feed the wire) etc.
>
> I've also got an 18" one that works great in trailer house floors.  Drill 
> the hole in the floor, poke the rod/wire through the insulation below, go 
> down, find the rod, wiggle it a bit to enlarge the hole, pull the cat 5 down 
> and off you go.
>
> laters,
> 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/

Re: [WISPA] billable fee schedule

[John Vogel]

I think most of the items you are proposing to pay less than $30 dollars
for are too cheap. I wouldn't want to do those things for those amounts.
Especially if I have to drive to the customer's home to do them.

John

RickG wrote:
> OK, back to my original question: Does anyone have a fee schedule for
> their installer/repair subcontractors?
> I'm trying to cover every possible scenario. Here is what I've put together:
>
> Subcontractor Fee Schedule
> $75 – Standard installation of KyWiFi customer premises equipment
> according to manufacturer’s instructions including install mount to an
> outside wall, radio/antenna installation, transmitter configuration,
> drilling through one exterior wall and one interior wall or floor,
> installation of up to 150’ of cable with wall/floor bushings,
> termination to one computer or router, configuration of one router and
> one PC.
> $15 – Extended cable run up to 300’.
> $30 – Service call to replace cable performed on site at customer’s premises.
> $20 – Service call to replace radio/antenna performed on site at
> customer’s premises.
> $10 – Service call to replace POE, and/or power supply performed on
> site at customer’s premises.
> $5 – NTF. i.e. reset radio/router. Note: May be billable to customer!
> $5 – Anti-virus/Adware software download, installation, configuration
> and customer orientation.
> $5 – Installation no show, must wait 30 minutes and must attempt to
> call customer twice.
> $5 – Site survey performed on site at prospective customer’s premises.
> $5 – Extended area trip fee (outside of Montgomery County).
> $10/hour for any services not described above.
> $25 – Bonus for 10 or more customer installations performed in a one
> week (Saturday - Sunday) period.
>
> -RickG
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:22 AM, RickG  wrote:
>   
>> It sounds like you are a "character"!
>> I'm glad your marketing and service efforts are paying off.
>> I actually have had much the same results.
>> Good work and Thanks!
>> -RickG
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Mike  wrote:
>> 
>>> Actually, since they are a cellular company and can have unlimited
>>> bandwidth, they are faster right now.  That will change as they build
>>> out.  The customer money stays local instead of going out of town
>>> when they "shop" with me.
>>>
>>> I write a weekly column for the paper so am well known in the area;
>>> that helps a bunch.
>>>
>>> I drive a trailer to local events and set up free WiFi.  That has
>>> certainly raised awareness.
>>>
>>> I have brought broadband to people who absolutely couldn't get it any
>>> other way.  National statistics will show there is a definite boost
>>> to property value if a household is able to get high speed
>>> Internet.  I've actually had people make a house buying decision on
>>> whether we could bring them broadband or not.
>>>
>>> I have a flashing light I can turn on placed on 2 of the towers.  A
>>> site survey begins by a phone conversation, turning on the light and
>>> "can you see it now?"  That has really helped and raised awareness.
>>>
>>> Superior customer service.  Money stays locally.  Dealing with a
>>> local character.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> At 06:09 PM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
>>>   
 Is it a comparable service? What do you give versus what they give?

 On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Mike  wrote:
 
> Rick:
>
> The competition that came at me is 39.00.  Mine, if you pay promptly
> is 42.50.  They intentionally came in under me.  Like I've said, only
> 2 have jumped ship.
>
> At 11:08 AM 10/13/2009, you wrote:
>   
>> But, do the ones who have a choice for cheaper service and out of
>> contract stay with you?
>> -RickG
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Mike  wrote:
>> 
>>> Similar to your example of perceived value, we extract a capital fee
>>> up front when putting on a new customer.  My accountant described it
>>> like joining a health club, you get to use the equipment but don't
>>> get to take it home.  The fee is the real cost of installing.  Easy
>>> ones are 150 bucks.  Others vary according to difficulty.  So they
>>> buy in to the whole thing from the get go.
>>>
>>> Our rates are 45.00.  If you pay on time, from email billing, you
>>> take off 2.50 and its 42.50.
>>>
>>> I think I have a very loyal bunch of customers.  I didn't know what
>>> to expect when the two year contracts started expiring, but MOST have
>>> stayed with us.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> At 09:47 PM 10/12/2009, you wrote:
>>>   
 Mike,

 Since I began working, even as a teenager, I worked 60-80 hours a week
 giving customers the best I could. I'm now 49 and still work at least
 that many hours. At least now, I own my company and do it for myself.
 In fact, before I owned my own compa

Re: [WISPA] DHCP options

[John Vogel]

I have no idea how the Alvarion equipment handles bridging, but when I
have needed to bridge the CPE and also give the client an address via
DHCP, I have done it with a Mikrotik DHCP server, inputting the MAC of
the radio, but specifying "use src mac address". That lets the client
plug whatever they want in to the ethernet port I give them out of the
bridge radio and get the address I have assigned to them via DHCP. You
do have to be sure there are no rogue DHCP servers on the network.

There may well be limited circumstances that this would work. I have
done it with Senao (CB3), Deliberant, Tranzeo, and UBNT bridges. The
primary reason I use it is for when the static IP I have entered into
the client router (Linksys, Belkin etc.) lose their config and go to
factory defaults. Lets me get the customer back online without a truck
roll, or spending 20 minutes talking them through the configuration of
the router.

My preference is to use a routing CPE, and hand out NATed IPs to the
customer from there.

John

Cameron Kilton wrote:
> We are looking into a DHCP delivery method that doesn't require the use
> of Mac Addresses to enter. We are using all Alvarion VL equipment (5.x &
> 900) the problem is:
>
> We want Customer to plug in device and get a DHCP address, easy right.
> Okay hard part, without the use of Mac addresses how can we tell which
> customers are what and log this into a database. Is there a way to
> control this via the radio? 
>
> We don't want to use PPPoE so that option is out, we currently provide
> Static IP numbers for everybody but would like to get away from this in
> certain (cheaper) markets. 
>
> Come on guys, hit me with your best ideas on this one. Were at a wall.
>
>
> Thank You,
> 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] Net Neutrality

[John Vogel]

Jack,

I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much
addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues.
I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are
reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that
free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's
upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think
free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs,
nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some
argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I
think the issues have been conflated.

The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the
News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech
issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable
companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc.
are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there
any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But..
P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes
presented as such.

The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not
inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS"
(quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional
guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged
with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional
right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction
you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose.
Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate
IMNSHO. :)

As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be
similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio
40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" by
Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the
HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since
then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC
decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I
cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it
uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of
free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that.

I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to
consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an
advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again,
not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue.

Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at
you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it AFAICT.

John
*
Jack Unger wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have
> conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue
> of bandwidth and there is an issue of content.
>
> On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing
> bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they
> contract for and not any more than what they contract for.
>
> On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the
> "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they
> won't pass.
>
> If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need
> to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or
> you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or
> receive it from.
>
> I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> jack
>
>
> John Vogel wrote:
>> Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who
>> would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If
>> it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved,
>> moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high
>> bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as
>> most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their
>> networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done
>> so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type
>> of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been
>> transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of
>> connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization)
>>
>> Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I
>> reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to
>> converse with other p

Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality

[John Vogel]

Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who
would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If
it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved,
moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high
bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as
most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their
networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done
so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type
of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been
transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of
connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization)

Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I
reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to
converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything
they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals,
(cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that,
and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are
communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech,
arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke
signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free
speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate
is somewhat disingenuous.

There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them
under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately.

John

Jack Unger wrote:
> The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any 
> Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to 
> say.
>
> The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as 
> most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just 
> one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to 
> another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and 
> shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you 
> going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL 
> ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off.
>
> Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I 
> don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free 
> Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet 
> service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are 
> saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my 
> freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free 
> Speech right now!!!".
>
>
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>   
>> What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me what 
>> to do.  More regulations is less freedom.  If someone doesn't like the way 
>> ISP A operates, move to ISP B.  If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or 
>> start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the 
>> first place.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jack Unger 
>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
>>
>>
>> Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write the 
>> laws and make the rules. 
>>
>> Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your carrier 
>> from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they didn't 
>> like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post to. NN 
>> is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". 
>>
>> If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to 
>> print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your 
>> packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like 
>> about that?
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote: 
>> Who's definition of unreasonable...
>>
>> On 9/19/09, Jack Unger  wrote:
>>   The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth.
>> Reasonable network management policies are allowed.
>>
>> Robert West wrote:
>> Another unfunded mandate.  If I were to provide net neutral broadband the
>> price would be $120 per meg.  Maybe my customers would understand if I
>> explained how it's net neutral.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Blair Davis
>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
>>
>>
>>
>> It's back
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --