Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Dennis Burgess via AF]

Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that high?


[LTI-Full_175px]
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified
Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
Office: 314-735-0270  Website: 
http://www.linktechs.net
Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com

From: AF  On Behalf Of Tim Hardy
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on 3723 - 
3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that this is how 
they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with the ground 
station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one thing, they’re 
going to look at everything else and that’s how the unregistered locations 
ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind of 
petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the second 
one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Steve Jones
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was low 
3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for earth 
stations you never know what they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:
Jamming C band CATV...

From: Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 
3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the 
3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders had 
no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy 
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:
BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION 
WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet agrees to 
$16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation into 
unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: 
Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. 
(DA No. 20-46). EB. 
DA-20-46A1.docx 
DA-20-46A1.pdfDA-20-46A1.txt
Sent from my iPad
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] CPI training & exam

[Mike Hammett]

CPNI vs. CPI 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 4:11:26 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPI training & exam 




OK, I just gotta ask: this CPI of which you speak must not be Customer 
Proprietary Information... 

? 




From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:04 PM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CPI training & exam 


I just took the commsearch exam through proctoru. Its pretty easy exam, i 
missed one, it takes like ten minutes 


On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:24 PM Eric Nielsen < ericlniel...@gmail.com > wrote: 




Online is easier. You can study at your leisure, but all exams are proctored. 
Comsearch is still pushing their promotion, which I believe is the cheapest 
option. 



On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:12 PM < af-requ...@af.afmug.com > wrote: 


Send AF mailing list submissions to 
af@af.afmug.com 

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
af-requ...@af.afmug.com 

You can reach the person managing the list at 
af-ow...@af.afmug.com 

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


Today's Topics: 

1. CPI training & exam (Ken Hohhof) 
2. Re: The Future (Ken Hohhof) 
3. Re: [BULK] Re: OT Swimming Pools (Ken Hohhof) 
4. Re: CPI training & exam (David Coudron) 


-- 

Message: 1 
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:27:16 -0600 
From: "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > 
To: "'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Subject: [AFMUG] CPI training & exam 
Message-ID: <001401d5d0b2$514f8660$f3ee9320$@ kwisp.com > 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 

Has anyone here taken the CPI training, either online or in person? Any 
recommendation which is best? I'm thinking online would be more self-paced, 
but WISPA is offering in person at WISPAmerica. However that likely means 
staying an extra day. 



Also what format does the exam take? Is it in person if you take the course 
in person? Online at a later date? Retake if you fail? Does anyone fail? 

-- next part -- 
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... 
URL: < 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/private/af_af.afmug.com/attachments/20200121/9cf835d2/attachment-0001.html
 > 

-- 

Message: 2 
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:31:46 -0600 
From: "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > 
To: "'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future 
Message-ID: <001901d5d0b2$f264b520$d72e1f60$@ kwisp.com > 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 

The other thing about giant tech companies like Google, Amazon, and SpaceX is 
they can do even giant projects at a loss. Eventually they may intend to make a 
profit, but meanwhile they have used other peoples money to drive you out of 
business. There are also startups that lose money like crazy chasing market 
share, like ridesharing and coworking companies, although big funds like 
Softbank seem to be learning not to throw billions at startups without a 
business plan to reach profitability. 





From: AF < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Ryan Ray 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:18 PM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future 



I'm still very wary of this. There seems to be a lot of over-promising under 
delivering. In typical Elon fashion, no details but the world runs with it and 
puts out all these data models that make it seem like the second coming of 
christ. Customer CPE is a pizza box ufo <$200 and they are starting in 2020, 
but there's no pictures or details. How is that even possible? We're buying 
450b at a more expensive cost and there ain't no phased antenna with motors in 
it. 



Then all you read online is the cult following of spaceslax who takes a twitter 
post as gospel and just keeps perpetuating the same tired information. 







On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 10:02 AM Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com  > wrote: 

If the SpaceX Starlink system works at 50% of what it's hyped, it will 
become the future of rural internet. Urban is still going to be 
dominated (eventually) by fiber for the foreseeable future. Higher speed 
wireless will be very, very local. 


bp 
 

On 1/19/2020 6:29 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: 
> I don?t know why, but this evening got me thinking about broadband delivery 
> over the past 30 years and the future of broadband. 
> 
> First we had nothing, then along came dial-up and that was amazing and many 
> companies sprung up offering the service. Giants like AOL and Prodigy. 
> 
> Then DSL and Cable came along as well as wireless and dial-up has all but 
> died. 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Mike Hammett]

There was a lot of talk about that and we specifically don't want that. 


We get use of their space if they're not actually using it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:33:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105 


Is there not going to be a requirement that the companies that buy the spectrum 
actually utilize it? If not, that's dumb. 


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Investors are who will be taking the spectrum. HUGE opportunity. 
Commscope is putting together a guidance 
I know we will get the credits toward the auction, but I simply dont see us 
being able to outbid investors. 
unless your in cook county 




On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:51 PM Jaime Solorza < losguyswirel...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Friend of mine still has some ESMR licenses he leases that he got before Nextel 
sold out to Sprint. Great residual income. 


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 1:36 PM Cameron Crum < cc...@murcevilo.com > wrote: 



My opinion, any spectrum you own is valuable and will only increase in value. 
It's like beachfront property, they ain't making any more of it and 
communication demands aren't getting any smaller. 


On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I imagine it depends a lot on the location... I can't see it having much value 
in some areas. 


On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:41 AM < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






How much do you think it is worth to win some of this spectrum? There are some 
that are trying to form consortiums. -- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Mike Hammett]

The intent here is to stop that. There is no incentive to put up placeholder 
equipment. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:39:30 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105 


There have already been cases where a speculator pays people to install 
equipment just so they can demonstrate that they're using it while they find a 
buyer. They paid for much more expensive equipment than a 3.5ghz AP. 

Maybe someone squats all the PAL's in a market until Select Spectrum finds a 
cell phone company who wants to pay a few mil for them. 

Or is there something in the rules to prevent that? 



On 1/23/2020 3:08 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: 


If you buy it but don’t operate in it then the spectrum stays as GAA which 
anyone can use. 


I don’t see it as being a good speculative investment play given that it 
returns to GAA unless you are actually using it. In a metro area it might make 
sense from an investment perspective but in a rural area where there are a very 
limited number of potential users trying to hold the spectrum to maximize value 
is pretty difficult. If the investor can’t come to an agreement with the 
operator the operator still gets the spectrum as GAA. The investor then has to 
go find an operator willing to utilize the spectrum and incur the buildout 
costs. 



The idea behind having spectrum revert to GAA is meant to discourage 
warehousing and speculation on spectrum. Hard to say at this point if it will 
work out that way, but it’s at least a start at breaking the current 
speculative warehousing the goes on in spectrum. 


Mark 





On Jan 23, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: 


You can lease it out, so I doubt it 


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:33 PM Jason McKemie < 
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote: 



Is there not going to be a requirement that the companies that buy the spectrum 
actually utilize it? If not, that's dumb. 


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Investors are who will be taking the spectrum. HUGE opportunity. 
Commscope is putting together a guidance 
I know we will get the credits toward the auction, but I simply dont see us 
being able to outbid investors. 
unless your in cook county 




On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:51 PM Jaime Solorza < losguyswirel...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



Friend of mine still has some ESMR licenses he leases that he got before Nextel 
sold out to Sprint. Great residual income. 


On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 1:36 PM Cameron Crum < cc...@murcevilo.com > wrote: 



My opinion, any spectrum you own is valuable and will only increase in value. 
It's like beachfront property, they ain't making any more of it and 
communication demands aren't getting any smaller. 


On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I imagine it depends a lot on the location... I can't see it having much value 
in some areas. 


On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:41 AM < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






How much do you think it is worth to win some of this spectrum? There are some 
that are trying to form consortiums. -- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 







-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Basic Tower Mount 6 Inch - 800-M-TOW-6

[Lincs_chel]

Hi Chuck;

OK.  Thanks very much.

Lincoln


On 23/01/2020 11:12 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

They all do...
It depends on which holes you use for the bolts.
*From:* Lincs_chel
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:10 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Basic Tower Mount 6 Inch - 800-M-TOW-6
Hi Chuck;

Which one is correct or which one would be received if ordered with 
this P/N: 800-M-TOW-6?


  * https://www.mccowntech.com/product/basic-tower-mount-6-inch/
 o
  o This one appears not to have any down/up tile capability. 
Though the specs says that it does.
  * https://www.streakwave.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=M-TOW-6
  o 800-M-TOW-6

LH


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Mike Hammett]

There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
compared to alternatives. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 


What does Calix get you for on the management? I've been looking into some 
options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty proud of 
their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense for the 
number of managed routers we would be deploying right now. 


I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream 
Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of 
decades). At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to 
sacrifice my firstborn for. 


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
wrote: 



Guys, 


Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and we 
include the first router free in all our plans. 


Makes a huge difference. 


Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz channel away 
from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their service will 
stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh system like orbi 
where you can still set the channel manually. 


We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting one 
server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't respond 
to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi speedtests. 


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net 
> wrote: 


I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week. Plug in, no issue. 
WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's 
so bad it's just not fixable. 

I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service, 
use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that. 

On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: 
> Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh 
> routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends 
> you to? Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to 
> Youtube servers. 
> 
> Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to 
> periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to 
> report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re 
> paying for. We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats, including 
> Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic consistently 
> to the speed plan they’re on. When asked what they were trying to do 
> that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any 
> problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just 
> reviewing the Google report. 
> 
> One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a windstorm 
> so we needed to come out and fix it. We have all sorts of graphs on his 
> signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved. We had however moved this 
> tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time. Everyone 
> else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming, gaming 
> and web browsing now play nice together. I’m wondering if somehow the 
> Google speedtest doesn’t like the Preseem algorithms (FQ-CODEL + AQM), 
> or if their speedtest is just flakey. 
> 
> I don’t have a Google or Nest WiFi to test with. We have a whole list 
> of other reasons why we hate them. Generally we tell customers not to 
> buy them unless they are on a 3.65 GHz AP, but customers like to say 
> screw you and then still expect you to be responsible for their bad 
> decisions. (Like the customers who select the cheap plan despite being 
> told it is too slow to watch streaming video, and then call to complain 
> about streaming video.) 
> 
> Other reasons we hate them: 
> 
> - no dedicated backhaul channel, compared to (for example) Netgear Orbi 
> 
> - only 1 or 2 Ethernet ports 
> 
> - requires Google account and app 
> 
> - requires cloud 
> 
> - uses Google DNS by default 
> 
> - tell me they’re not doing data mining 
> 
> - puck and point terminology is goofy, reminiscent of Apple and their 
> airports and time capsules 
> 
> 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 



-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Tushar Patel]

And the Alternatives are?

 

Tushar

 

From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:31 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

 

There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
compared to alternatives.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 




  _  

From: "Jason McKemie" mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into some 
options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty proud of 
their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense for the 
number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.

 

I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream 
Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of 
decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to 
sacrifice my firstborn for.

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > wrote:

Guys,

 

Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and we 
include the first router free in all our plans. 

 

Makes a huge difference. 

 

Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz channel away 
from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their service will 
stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh system like orbi 
where you can still set the channel manually.

 

We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net 
  and selecting one server we like. Also they have to be 
hardwired to the POE or we won't respond to their tests. This eliminates much 
of the back and forth wifi speedtests. 

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue. 
WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's 
so bad it's just not fixable.

I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service, 
use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.

On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh 
> routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends 
> you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to 
> Youtube servers.
> 
> Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to 
> periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to 
> report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re 
> paying for.  We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats, including 
> Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic consistently 
> to the speed plan they’re on.  When asked what they were trying to do 
> that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any 
> problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just 
> reviewing the Google report.
> 
> One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a windstorm 
> so we needed to come out and fix it.  We have all sorts of graphs on his 
> signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved.  We had however moved this 
> tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time.  Everyone 
> else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming, gaming 
> and web browsing now play nice together.  I’m wondering if somehow the 
> Google speedtest doesn’t like the Preseem algorithms (FQ-CODEL + AQM), 
> or if their speedtest is just flakey.
> 
> I don’t have a Google or Nest WiFi to test with.  We have a whole list 
> of other reasons why we hate them.  Generally we tell customers not to 
> buy them unless they are on a 3.65 GHz AP, but customers like to say 
> screw you and then still expect you to be responsible for their bad 
> decisions.  (Like the customers who select the cheap plan despite being 
> told it is too slow to watch streaming video, and then call to complain 
> about streaming video.)
> 
> Other reasons we hate them:
> 
> - no dedicated backhaul channel, compared to (for example) Netgear Orbi
> 
> - o

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Josh Luthman]

Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms of
hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.

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


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
> compared to alternatives.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream
> Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of
> decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to
> sacrifice my firstborn for.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
>> we include the first router free in all our plans.
>>
>> Makes a huge difference.
>>
>> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
>> channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
>> their service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different
>> mesh system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>>
>> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
>> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
>> respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi
>> speedtests.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes <
>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
>>> WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's
>>> so bad it's just not fixable.
>>>
>>> I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service,
>>> use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.
>>>
>>> On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>> > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh
>>> > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends
>>> > you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to
>>> > Youtube servers.
>>> >
>>> > Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to
>>> > periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to
>>> > report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re
>>> > paying for.  We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats, including
>>> > Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic consistently
>>> > to the speed plan they’re on.  When asked what they were trying to do
>>> > that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any
>>> > problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just
>>> > reviewing the Google report.
>>> >
>>> > One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a windstorm
>>> > so we needed to come out and fix it.  We have all sorts of graphs on
>>> his
>>> > signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved.  We had however moved
>>> this
>>> > tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time.
>>> Everyone
>>> > else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming, gaming
>>> > and web browsing now play nice together.  I’m wondering if somehow the
>>> > Google speedtest doesn’t like the Preseem algorithms (FQ-CODEL + AQM),
>>> > or if their speedtest is just flakey.
>>> >
>>> > I don’t have a Google or Nest WiFi to test with.  We have a whole list
>>> > of other reasons why we hate them.  Generally we tell customers not to
>>> > buy them unless they are on a 3.65 GHz AP, but customers like to say
>>> > screw you and then still expect you to be responsible for their bad
>>> > decisions.  (Like the customers who select the cheap plan despite
>>> being
>>> > told it is too slow to watch streaming video, and then c

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Mike Hammett]

The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS. 

The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product. 

TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love Calix love 
to boast about. 



The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in. One 
dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities of that 
management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided to 
implement. 


There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh that 
intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about the Calix 
meshing either. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Tushar Patel"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:32:59 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 



And the Alternatives are? 

Tushar 



From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:31 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 


There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
compared to alternatives. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -


From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 

What does Calix get you for on the management? I've been looking into some 
options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty proud of 
their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense for the 
number of managed routers we would be deploying right now. 



I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream 
Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of 
decades). At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to 
sacrifice my firstborn for. 



On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
wrote: 



Guys, 



Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and we 
include the first router free in all our plans. 



Makes a huge difference. 



Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz channel away 
from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their service will 
stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh system like orbi 
where you can still set the channel manually. 



We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting one 
server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't respond 
to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi speedtests. 



On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes < mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net 
> wrote: 


I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week. Plug in, no issue. 
WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's 
so bad it's just not fixable. 

I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service, 
use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that. 

On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: 
> Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh 
> routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends 
> you to? Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to 
> Youtube servers. 
> 
> Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to 
> periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to 
> report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re 
> paying for. We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats, including 
> Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic consistently 
> to the speed plan they’re on. When asked what they were trying to do 
> that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any 
> problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just 
> reviewing the Google report. 
> 
> One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a windstorm 
> so we needed to come out and fix it. We have all sorts of graphs on his 
> signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved. We had however moved this 
> tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time. Everyone 
> else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming, gaming 
> and web browsing now play nice together. I’m wondering if somehow the 
> Google speedtest doesn’t like the Preseem algorithms (FQ-CODEL + AQM), 
> or if their speedtest is just flakey. 
> 
> I don’t have a Google or Nest WiFi to test with. We have a whole list 
> of other reasons why we hate them. Generally we tell customers not to 
> buy them unless they ar

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Josh Baird]

The 844E is not bad.  Their management platform is crazy stupid expensive
with minimums that are typically too high for small to medium size WISPs.
There is also the problem of actually getting their hardware.  They don't
make it easy.

Sure, you can always run your own ACS, but it's not going to be as full
featured as their own unless you put a ton of development time into it.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:45 AM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms
> of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
>> compared to alternatives.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>
>> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
>> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
>> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
>> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>>
>> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
>> Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
>> of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need
>> to sacrifice my firstborn for.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
>>> we include the first router free in all our plans.
>>>
>>> Makes a huge difference.
>>>
>>> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
>>> channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
>>> their service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different
>>> mesh system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>>>
>>> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
>>> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
>>> respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi
>>> speedtests.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes <
>>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>>
 I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
 WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or
 it's
 so bad it's just not fixable.

 I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service,
 use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.

 On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
 > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi
 mesh
 > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends
 > you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to
 > Youtube servers.
 >
 > Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to
 > periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to
 > report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re
 > paying for.  We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats,
 including
 > Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic
 consistently
 > to the speed plan they’re on.  When asked what they were trying to do
 > that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any
 > problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just
 > reviewing the Google report.
 >
 > One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a
 windstorm
 > so we needed to come out and fix it.  We have all sorts of graphs on
 his
 > signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved.  We had however moved
 this
 > tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time.
 Everyone
 > else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming,
 gaming
 > and web browsing now play nice together.  I’m wondering if someho

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Darin Steffl]

Mike,

It's apparent to me that you have not demoed or had physical Calix products
in your hand before. What you just proposed requires much more hands-on
setup and support than Calix which is all handled by them with a technical
team to back it up. Your solution requires you to deploy one or more
servers, set them up, make sure they don't go down, then pray that you or
the vendor can help fix an issue when it shows up. I guarantee that all
costs much more money than what we pay Calix in terms of actual license
costs and labor savings.

Plus I'm positive Calix hardware performs better than any other router you
find like Comtrend and the mesh solution won't be as pretty or seamless
either. Probably not one-touch like Calix is.

You think you're going to save money with your own solution but all you'll
do is spend more time and money than I do and have a worse platform.
There's a reason why so many telcos deploy Calix and it's because it's
cheaper in the long run from labor efficiencies and better customer
experience.

I keep preaching to WISP's that doing everything yourself is hurting your
business. Outsource what doesn't make you money. Managing servers and
playing with Linux, etc does NOT make you money. Adding new customer
revenue does that for you so deploy solutions that require as little of
your time as possible so you can focus on selling and increasing revenue.
Calix allows us to do that as well as Preseem & Azotel. If we tried to do
what you're doing, we would be stuck in the mud messing around and not
making as much money.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS.
>
> The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product.
>
> TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love Calix
> love to boast about.
>
> The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in.
> One dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities
> of that management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided
> to implement.
>
> There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh
> that intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about
> the Calix meshing either.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Tushar Patel" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 24, 2020 8:32:59 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> And the Alternatives are?
>
>
>
> Tushar
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 8:31 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
>
>
> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
> compared to alternatives.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream
> Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of
> decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to
> sacrifice my firstborn for.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
>
>
> Sta

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
wrote:

> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
> high?
>
>
>
>
>
> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>
> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>
> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>
> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>
> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind
> of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the
> second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was
> low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for
> earth stations you never know what they've done.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>
> Jamming C band CATV...
>
>
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>
>
>
> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>
>
>
> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>
> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>  DA-20-46A1.pdf
> DA-20-46A1.txt
> 
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Mike Hammett]

That would be incorrect. I have Calix DSLAMs and have worked with Calix for a 
few years. Their paid support leaves much to be desired. Obvious SNMP bug is 
obvious and they don't care. 





I'm not going to say the Calix product is a bad product, but there's a severe 
amount of fanboyism around it that I believe is unwarranted. I don't believe 
people actually looked into alternatives. 


I have to setup and manage a server? So? It's just another VM on the existing 
platform. 


Saving money isn't my only drive. Having a more flexible system has its 
advantages. 






It seems as though you don't have the technical desire to do something not 
Calix... and that's fine, but it's not the only (or even best) way to skin the 
cat. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Darin Steffl"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:54:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 


Mike, 


It's apparent to me that you have not demoed or had physical Calix products in 
your hand before. What you just proposed requires much more hands-on setup and 
support than Calix which is all handled by them with a technical team to back 
it up. Your solution requires you to deploy one or more servers, set them up, 
make sure they don't go down, then pray that you or the vendor can help fix an 
issue when it shows up. I guarantee that all costs much more money than what we 
pay Calix in terms of actual license costs and labor savings. 


Plus I'm positive Calix hardware performs better than any other router you find 
like Comtrend and the mesh solution won't be as pretty or seamless either. 
Probably not one-touch like Calix is. 


You think you're going to save money with your own solution but all you'll do 
is spend more time and money than I do and have a worse platform. There's a 
reason why so many telcos deploy Calix and it's because it's cheaper in the 
long run from labor efficiencies and better customer experience. 


I keep preaching to WISP's that doing everything yourself is hurting your 
business. Outsource what doesn't make you money. Managing servers and playing 
with Linux, etc does NOT make you money. Adding new customer revenue does that 
for you so deploy solutions that require as little of your time as possible so 
you can focus on selling and increasing revenue. Calix allows us to do that as 
well as Preseem & Azotel. If we tried to do what you're doing, we would be 
stuck in the mud messing around and not making as much money. 


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS. 

The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product. 

TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love Calix love 
to boast about. 



The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in. One 
dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities of that 
management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided to 
implement. 


There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh that 
intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about the Calix 
meshing either. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Tushar Patel" < tpa...@ecpi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:32:59 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 



And the Alternatives are? 

Tushar 



From: AF [mailto: af-boun...@af.afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:31 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 


There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
compared to alternatives. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







From: "Jason McKemie" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 

What does Calix get you for on the management? I've been looking into some 
options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty proud of 
their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense for the 
number of managed routers we would be deploying right now. 



I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream 
Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of 
decades). At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to 
sacrifice my firstborn for. 



On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
wrote: 

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Cassidy B. Larson]

We looked at numerous alternatives before we settled on Calix. It’s been 
extremely good for us. We pulled in six figures last year in managed router 
revenue.. what did I pay Calix for their cloud option? Less than 2% I think.

We have the technical chops to make whatever work. Customers don’t care though, 
they want a good router, with good coverage that doesn’t give them issues. I 
want customers to pay me for it and not call with issues. We found that with 
Calix after looking around for a while and doing demos of others.



>> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:26, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> That would be incorrect. I have Calix DSLAMs and have worked with Calix for a 
> few years. Their paid support leaves much to be desired. Obvious SNMP bug is 
> obvious and they don't care.
> 
> 
> I'm not going to say the Calix product is a bad product, but there's a severe 
> amount of fanboyism around it that I believe is unwarranted. I don't believe 
> people actually looked into alternatives.
> 
> I have to setup and manage a server? So? It's just another VM on the existing 
> platform.
> 
> Saving money isn't my only drive. Having a more flexible system has its 
> advantages.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems as though you don't have the technical desire to do something not 
> Calix...  and that's fine, but it's not the only (or even best) way to skin 
> the cat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Darin Steffl" 
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:54:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
> 
> Mike,
> 
> It's apparent to me that you have not demoed or had physical Calix products 
> in your hand before. What you just proposed requires much more hands-on setup 
> and support than Calix which is all handled by them with a technical team to 
> back it up. Your solution requires you to deploy one or more servers, set 
> them up, make sure they don't go down, then pray that you or the vendor can 
> help fix an issue when it shows up. I guarantee that all costs much more 
> money than what we pay Calix in terms of actual license costs and labor 
> savings.
> 
> Plus I'm positive Calix hardware performs better than any other router you 
> find like Comtrend and the mesh solution won't be as pretty or seamless 
> either. Probably not one-touch like Calix is.
> 
> You think you're going to save money with your own solution but all you'll do 
> is spend more time and money than I do and have a worse platform. There's a 
> reason why so many telcos deploy Calix and it's because it's cheaper in the 
> long run from labor efficiencies and better customer experience.
> 
> I keep preaching to WISP's that doing everything yourself is hurting your 
> business. Outsource what doesn't make you money. Managing servers and playing 
> with Linux, etc does NOT make you money. Adding new customer revenue does 
> that for you so deploy solutions that require as little of your time as 
> possible so you can focus on selling and increasing revenue. Calix allows us 
> to do that as well as Preseem & Azotel. If we tried to do what you're doing, 
> we would be stuck in the mud messing around and not making as much money.
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS.
>> 
>> The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product.
>> 
>> TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love Calix 
>> love to boast about.
>> 
>> The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in. One 
>> dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities of 
>> that management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided to 
>> implement.
>> 
>> There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh that 
>> intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about the 
>> Calix meshing either.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Tushar Patel" 
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:32:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>> 
>> And the Alternatives are?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Tushar
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:31 AM
>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
>> compared to alternatives.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Jason McKemie" 
>> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Darin Steffl]

I'd say I have the technical ability to do something other than Calix but
you are correct, I do not have the desire to do anything else.

I'm busy adding revenue into the company by upgrading the network,
increasing plan prices, adding TV & Phone, targeting business customers,
etc. All of this is way more important to grow the business than trying to
come up with our own Management router platform. It would only hurt us to
not use something like Calix that works out of the box. I suggest you try
to think less like a techie/geek and more like a business person who likes
profit. This would change your mindset I think into using easy management
platforms that cost a little money. We pay $0.51 per month/sub for Calix
Cloud which is extremely affordable to me. For that small amount, I don't
need any servers, VM's, or coding knowledge.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> That would be incorrect. I have Calix DSLAMs and have worked with Calix
> for a few years. Their paid support leaves much to be desired. Obvious SNMP
> bug is obvious and they don't care.
>
>
> I'm not going to say the Calix product is a bad product, but there's a
> severe amount of fanboyism around it that I believe is unwarranted. I don't
> believe people actually looked into alternatives.
>
> I have to setup and manage a server? So? It's just another VM on the
> existing platform.
>
> Saving money isn't my only drive. Having a more flexible system has its
> advantages.
>
>
>
> It seems as though you don't have the technical desire to do something not
> Calix...  and that's fine, but it's not the only (or even best) way to skin
> the cat.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Darin Steffl" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 24, 2020 8:54:12 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> Mike,
>
> It's apparent to me that you have not demoed or had physical Calix
> products in your hand before. What you just proposed requires much more
> hands-on setup and support than Calix which is all handled by them with a
> technical team to back it up. Your solution requires you to deploy one or
> more servers, set them up, make sure they don't go down, then pray that you
> or the vendor can help fix an issue when it shows up. I guarantee that all
> costs much more money than what we pay Calix in terms of actual license
> costs and labor savings.
>
> Plus I'm positive Calix hardware performs better than any other router you
> find like Comtrend and the mesh solution won't be as pretty or seamless
> either. Probably not one-touch like Calix is.
>
> You think you're going to save money with your own solution but all you'll
> do is spend more time and money than I do and have a worse platform.
> There's a reason why so many telcos deploy Calix and it's because it's
> cheaper in the long run from labor efficiencies and better customer
> experience.
>
> I keep preaching to WISP's that doing everything yourself is hurting your
> business. Outsource what doesn't make you money. Managing servers and
> playing with Linux, etc does NOT make you money. Adding new customer
> revenue does that for you so deploy solutions that require as little of
> your time as possible so you can focus on selling and increasing revenue.
> Calix allows us to do that as well as Preseem & Azotel. If we tried to do
> what you're doing, we would be stuck in the mud messing around and not
> making as much money.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS.
>>
>> The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product.
>>
>> TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love
>> Calix love to boast about.
>>
>> The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in.
>> One dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities
>> of that management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided
>> to implement.
>>
>> There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh
>> that intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about
>> the Calix meshing either.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Adam Moffett]

US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.


On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're 
mostly PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've 
done anything with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you 
might be able to set them that high... or maybe they have some non-US 
radios...


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF > wrote:


Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit
that high?

*LTI-Full_175px*

*Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium
ePMP Certified *

Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”

*Link Technologies, Inc*-- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

*Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net


Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com


*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be
operating on 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903
and you’re right that this is how they got caught.  No question
that had they not interfered with the ground station, this
wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one thing, they’re
going to look at everything else and that’s how the unregistered
locations ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which
seems kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz. 
I’m going to assume the second one got them in trouble and led
to finding the first one?

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob
so if it was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even
make a cursory check for earth stations you never know what
they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Jamming C band CATV...

*From:*Mathew Howard

*Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM

*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions -
unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were interfering
with was in the 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were
doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said
other "license" holders had no recourse, it took a
fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED
INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION WQMJ660. Brevard
Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan
resolving investigation into unauthorized
operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band
. Action by: Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau.
Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx

DA-20-46A1.pdf

DA-20-46A1.txt


Sent from my iPad

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing lis

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Mike Hammett]

I'm not coming up with my own anything. I'm not having to code anything. It's 
standards. Standards that Calix took and pay-walled. 


The software I'm using is the same software Calix forked. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Darin Steffl"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:59:49 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 


I'd say I have the technical ability to do something other than Calix but you 
are correct, I do not have the desire to do anything else. 


I'm busy adding revenue into the company by upgrading the network, increasing 
plan prices, adding TV & Phone, targeting business customers, etc. All of this 
is way more important to grow the business than trying to come up with our own 
Management router platform. It would only hurt us to not use something like 
Calix that works out of the box. I suggest you try to think less like a 
techie/geek and more like a business person who likes profit. This would change 
your mindset I think into using easy management platforms that cost a little 
money. We pay $0.51 per month/sub for Calix Cloud which is extremely affordable 
to me. For that small amount, I don't need any servers, VM's, or coding 
knowledge. 


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




That would be incorrect. I have Calix DSLAMs and have worked with Calix for a 
few years. Their paid support leaves much to be desired. Obvious SNMP bug is 
obvious and they don't care. 





I'm not going to say the Calix product is a bad product, but there's a severe 
amount of fanboyism around it that I believe is unwarranted. I don't believe 
people actually looked into alternatives. 


I have to setup and manage a server? So? It's just another VM on the existing 
platform. 


Saving money isn't my only drive. Having a more flexible system has its 
advantages. 






It seems as though you don't have the technical desire to do something not 
Calix... and that's fine, but it's not the only (or even best) way to skin the 
cat. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Darin Steffl" < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 8:54:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest 


Mike, 


It's apparent to me that you have not demoed or had physical Calix products in 
your hand before. What you just proposed requires much more hands-on setup and 
support than Calix which is all handled by them with a technical team to back 
it up. Your solution requires you to deploy one or more servers, set them up, 
make sure they don't go down, then pray that you or the vendor can help fix an 
issue when it shows up. I guarantee that all costs much more money than what we 
pay Calix in terms of actual license costs and labor savings. 


Plus I'm positive Calix hardware performs better than any other router you find 
like Comtrend and the mesh solution won't be as pretty or seamless either. 
Probably not one-touch like Calix is. 


You think you're going to save money with your own solution but all you'll do 
is spend more time and money than I do and have a worse platform. There's a 
reason why so many telcos deploy Calix and it's because it's cheaper in the 
long run from labor efficiencies and better customer experience. 


I keep preaching to WISP's that doing everything yourself is hurting your 
business. Outsource what doesn't make you money. Managing servers and playing 
with Linux, etc does NOT make you money. Adding new customer revenue does that 
for you so deploy solutions that require as little of your time as possible so 
you can focus on selling and increasing revenue. Calix allows us to do that as 
well as Preseem & Azotel. If we tried to do what you're doing, we would be 
stuck in the mud messing around and not making as much money. 


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:45 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS. 

The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product. 

TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love Calix love 
to boast about. 



The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in. One 
dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities of that 
management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided to 
implement. 


There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh that 
intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about the Calix 
meshing either. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Tushar Patel" < tpa...@ecpi.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users G

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Jason McKemie]

Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the 844G.

On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms
> of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> 
> Suite 1337
> 
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
>> compared to alternatives.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>
>> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
>> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
>> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
>> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>>
>> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
>> Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
>> of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need
>> to sacrifice my firstborn for.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
>>> we include the first router free in all our plans.
>>>
>>> Makes a huge difference.
>>>
>>> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
>>> channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
>>> their service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different
>>> mesh system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>>>
>>> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
>>> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
>>> respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi
>>> speedtests.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes >> rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>>
 I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
 WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or
 it's
 so bad it's just not fixable.

 I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service,
 use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.

 On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
 > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi
 mesh
 > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends
 > you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to
 > Youtube servers.
 >
 > Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to
 > periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to
 > report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re
 > paying for.  We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats,
 including
 > Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic
 consistently
 > to the speed plan they’re on.  When asked what they were trying to do
 > that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any
 > problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just
 > reviewing the Google report.
 >
 > One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a
 windstorm
 > so we needed to come out and fix it.  We have all sorts of graphs on
 his
 > signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved.  We had however moved
 this
 > tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time.
 Everyone
 > else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming,
 gaming
 > and web browsing now play nice together.  I’m wondering if somehow
 the
 > Go

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Jason McKemie]

Mike -

What is pricing like on the routers / management? Have you compared the
router performance to something like the 844E?

On Friday, January 24, 2020, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The road we're going down is likely Comtrend routers with a Finepoint ACS.
>
> The Calix system is just a fork of an earlier Finepoint product.
>
> TR-069 and TR-143 manage most of the fancy features people that love Calix
> love to boast about.
>
> The advantage of something like this is that there is no vendor lock-in.
> One dashboard to support any device in the field, though the capabilities
> of that management would depend on what the device manufacturer has decided
> to implement.
>
> There are standards such as IEEE 1905 and the WiFi Alliance's Easy Mesh
> that intelligently handle cross-vendor meshing, so nothing special about
> the Calix meshing either.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Tushar Patel" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 24, 2020 8:32:59 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> And the Alternatives are?
>
>
>
> Tushar
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 8:31 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
>
>
> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
> compared to alternatives.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream
> Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of
> decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to
> sacrifice my firstborn for.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
>
>
> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and we
> include the first router free in all our plans.
>
>
>
> Makes a huge difference.
>
>
>
> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz channel
> away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their
> service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh
> system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>
>
>
> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
> respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi
> speedtests.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes  rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
> I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
> WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's
> so bad it's just not fixable.
>
> I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service,
> use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.
>
> On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh
> > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends
> > you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to
> > Youtube servers.
> >
> > Apparently they have a feature where customers ca

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Ken Hohhof]

Maybe start a new Calix thread?  My original post was about the speedtest built 
into Google routers and if anyone knew how it worked and whether it has 
accuracy problems.

 

I dislike the Google/Nest routers and discourage customers from using them, but 
saying I should deploy Calix everywhere doesn’t really address my question 
which comes from customers reporting alleged problems reported by their Google 
automatic speedtests.  That’s a little harder to troubleshoot than a customer 
calling because they are having trouble streaming Disney+ right now, or getting 
bad speedtest.net results right now.  It’s more like my Google report says I 
haven’t been getting what I pay you for over the past couple weeks.

 

Especially confusing, this customer claimed the bad results started right 
around the time we added his tower to our Preseem system.  That’s strange since 
we’ve been gradually rolling out Preseem for a year now and it has made things 
better not worse.  Also Preseem gives us lots of additional graphs which show 
this customer’s speed and latency on real traffic has been picture perfect.  If 
I look at Google FAQs and blog posts regarding their speedtest, there seems to 
be two variants.  The M-Lab one appears to be quite old, with some questionable 
approaches like single TCP connection and avoiding nearby servers, as well as 
currently undergoing a major TCP/IP algorithm change based on a change in 
philosophy regarding what constitutes congestion, and packet loss vs 
bufferbloat.  But it sounds like the speedtest built into the Google routers 
may test to Google servers, specifically Youtube.

 

If built in automated speedtests are a trend, I expect to hear more of these 
complaints.  Even if you provide a managed “residential gateway” type of 
solution, you can’t stop people from putting their own networking devices 
behind it.  All the major vendors are trying to sell smart home ecosystems that 
integrate with or are controlled by a router type device.  If you’ve bought 
into the Google Nest ecosystem, you have your Nest Thermostat, Nest Hubs, Nest 
Minis, Google Home, all talking to your Nest WiFi mesh system.  You tell your 
Nest Hub “Hey Google, check my Internet speed” and the Nest Hub tells the Nest 
WiFi to run a speedtest and then the Hub says “your Internet sucks” or whatever.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:28 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

 

I'm not coming up with my own anything. I'm not having to code anything. It's 
standards. Standards that Calix took and pay-walled.

 

The software I'm using is the same software Calix forked.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 




  _  

From: "Darin Steffl" mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:59:49 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

I'd say I have the technical ability to do something other than Calix but you 
are correct, I do not have the desire to do anything else.

 

I'm busy adding revenue into the company by upgrading the network, increasing 
plan prices, adding TV & Phone, targeting business customers, etc. All of this 
is way more important to grow the business than trying to come up with our own 
Management router platform. It would only hurt us to not use something like 
Calix that works out of the box. I suggest you try to think less like a 
techie/geek and more like a business person who likes profit. This would change 
your mindset I think into using easy management platforms that cost a little 
money. We pay $0.51 per month/sub for Calix Cloud which is extremely affordable 
to me. For that small amount, I don't need any servers, VM's, or coding 
knowledge.

 

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:26 AM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

That would be incorrect. I have Calix DSLAMs and have worked with Calix for a 
few years. Their paid support leaves much to be desired. Obvious SNMP bug is 
obvious and they don't care.

 

 

I'm not going to say the Calix product is a bad product, but there's a severe 
amount of fanboyism around it that I believe is unwarranted. I don't believe 
people actually looked into alternatives.

 

I have to setup and manage a server? So? It's just another VM on the existing 
platform.

 

Saving m

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Nate Burke]

Back to your topic, yes, I believe that they have accuracy problems.  
I've only had an issue with 1 customer so far.  Had a 20x5 connection 
from us.  He sent me the screenshot from the app. Looks like his router 
was running tests every 2 days.  They were all below 4mb/s.  All RF 
tests were fine, and if he ran speedtest.net, they were fine.  Just from 
his 'Google router' was telling him that his connection was slow.


He was a slick dressed, Tesla model S driving, smart home connected, 
city guy who moved to his mom's rental house.  He decided that he 
couldn't afford the 20x5plan anymore, so switched to our 4x1 plan. I 
haven't heard from him since he did that.


On 1/24/2020 11:02 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


Maybe start a new Calix thread?  My original post was about the 
speedtest built into Google routers and if anyone knew how it worked 
and whether it has accuracy problems.


I dislike the Google/Nest routers and discourage customers from using 
them, but saying I should deploy Calix everywhere doesn’t really 
address my question which comes from customers reporting alleged 
problems reported by their Google automatic speedtests.  That’s a 
little harder to troubleshoot than a customer calling because they are 
having trouble streaming Disney+ right now, or getting bad 
speedtest.net results right now.  It’s more like my Google report says 
I haven’t been getting what I pay you for over the past couple weeks.


Especially confusing, this customer claimed the bad results started 
right around the time we added his tower to our Preseem system.  
That’s strange since we’ve been gradually rolling out Preseem for a 
year now and it has made things better not worse.  Also Preseem gives 
us lots of additional graphs which show this customer’s speed and 
latency on real traffic has been picture perfect.  If I look at Google 
FAQs and blog posts regarding their speedtest, there seems to be two 
variants.  The M-Lab one appears to be quite old, with some 
questionable approaches like single TCP connection and avoiding nearby 
servers, as well as currently undergoing a major TCP/IP algorithm 
change based on a change in philosophy regarding what constitutes 
congestion, and packet loss vs bufferbloat.  But it sounds like the 
speedtest built into the Google routers may test to Google servers, 
specifically Youtube.


If built in automated speedtests are a trend, I expect to hear more of 
these complaints.  Even if you provide a managed “residential gateway” 
type of solution, you can’t stop people from putting their own 
networking devices behind it.  All the major vendors are trying to 
sell smart home ecosystems that integrate with or are controlled by a 
router type device.  If you’ve bought into the Google Nest ecosystem, 
you have your Nest Thermostat, Nest Hubs, Nest Minis, Google Home, all 
talking to your Nest WiFi mesh system.  You tell your Nest Hub “Hey 
Google, check my Internet speed” and the Nest Hub tells the Nest WiFi 
to run a speedtest and then the Hub says “your Internet sucks” or 
whatever.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:28 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

I'm not coming up with my own anything. I'm not having to code 
anything. It's standards. Standards that Calix took and pay-walled.


The software I'm using is the same software Calix forked.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 







*From: *"Darin Steffl" >
*To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" >

*Sent: *Friday, January 24, 2020 9:59:49 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

I'd say I have the technical ability to do something other than Calix 
but you are correct, I do not have the desire to do anything else.


I'm busy adding revenue into the company by upgrading the network, 
increasing plan prices, adding TV & Phone, targeting business 
customers, etc. All of this is way more important to grow the business 
than trying to come up with our own Management router platform. It 
would only hurt us to not use something like Calix that works out of 
the box. I suggest you try to think less like a techie/geek and more 
like a business person who likes profit. This would change your 
mindset I think into using easy management platforms tha

[AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

[Ken Hohhof]

Calix CPE is probably an easier decision for a FISP, or for a new WISP just 
starting deployment, or for a big provider that deploys a pallet load of 
routers every day.

 

For an established small WISP with maybe a couple thousand existing customers 
and a modest number of new customers monthly, converting to Calix and meeting 
their minimums for cloud features can be troublesome.  It’s also easier for a 
big carrier to just put a team of people from their CPE department on getting 
it done.  For a small WISP, it’s one more project for the head techie.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

 

Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the 844G.

On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote:

Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms of 
hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.


 

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St 

 
Suite 1337 

 
Troy, OH 45373 

 

 

 

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
compared to alternatives.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Jason McKemie" mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into some 
options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty proud of 
their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense for the 
number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.

 

I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream 
Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of 
decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to 
sacrifice my firstborn for.

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > wrote:

Guys,

 

Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and we 
include the first router free in all our plans. 

 

Makes a huge difference. 

 

Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz channel away 
from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their service will 
stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh system like orbi 
where you can still set the channel manually.

 

We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net 
  and selecting one server we like. Also they have to be 
hardwired to the POE or we won't respond to their tests. This eliminates much 
of the back and forth wifi speedtests. 

 

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue. 
WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's 
so bad it's just not fixable.

I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service, 
use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.

On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh 
> routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends 
> you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to 
> Youtube servers.
> 
> Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to 
> periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to 
> report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re 
> paying for.  We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats, including 
> Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic consistently 
> to the speed plan they’re on.  When asked what they were trying to do 
> that was slow 

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Ken Hohhof]

Out of curiosity, what do you tell customers who say they don’t own a computer? 
 Not being hypothetical or argumentative, I am actually getting that maybe 50% 
of the time now.

 

If they say their computer is a laptop without an Ethernet jack, I tell them to 
buy a $5 Ethernet cable and a $20 USB-Ethernet dongle at Best Buy for testing 
purposes.  But I don’t have a good response to the people who have no computer 
at all, other than a truck roll to test it ourselves, which of course is what 
we want to avoid unless there’s an actual problem.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Darin Steffl
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:22 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

 

I think I replied what we tell customers. We don't support any speedtest except 
what our guide says to do. I'll attach it here. This means no Google wifi tests 
or orbi, etc. 

 

We will still troubleshoot and check Calix for any performance issues but if 
the complaint is simply a speedtest and we aren't getting what we pay for, we 
send them our guide and only accept results following it. 

 

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:03 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Maybe start a new Calix thread?  My original post was about the speedtest built 
into Google routers and if anyone knew how it worked and whether it has 
accuracy problems.

 

I dislike the Google/Nest routers and discourage customers from using them, but 
saying I should deploy Calix everywhere doesn’t really address my question 
which comes from customers reporting alleged problems reported by their Google 
automatic speedtests.  That’s a little harder to troubleshoot than a customer 
calling because they are having trouble streaming Disney+ right now, or getting 
bad speedtest.net   results right now.  It’s more like my 
Google report says I haven’t been getting what I pay you for over the past 
couple weeks.

 

Especially confusing, this customer claimed the bad results started right 
around the time we added his tower to our Preseem system.  That’s strange since 
we’ve been gradually rolling out Preseem for a year now and it has made things 
better not worse.  Also Preseem gives us lots of additional graphs which show 
this customer’s speed and latency on real traffic has been picture perfect.  If 
I look at Google FAQs and blog posts regarding their speedtest, there seems to 
be two variants.  The M-Lab one appears to be quite old, with some questionable 
approaches like single TCP connection and avoiding nearby servers, as well as 
currently undergoing a major TCP/IP algorithm change based on a change in 
philosophy regarding what constitutes congestion, and packet loss vs 
bufferbloat.  But it sounds like the speedtest built into the Google routers 
may test to Google servers, specifically Youtube.

 

If built in automated speedtests are a trend, I expect to hear more of these 
complaints.  Even if you provide a managed “residential gateway” type of 
solution, you can’t stop people from putting their own networking devices 
behind it.  All the major vendors are trying to sell smart home ecosystems that 
integrate with or are controlled by a router type device.  If you’ve bought 
into the Google Nest ecosystem, you have your Nest Thermostat, Nest Hubs, Nest 
Minis, Google Home, all talking to your Nest WiFi mesh system.  You tell your 
Nest Hub “Hey Google, check my Internet speed” and the Nest Hub tells the Nest 
WiFi to run a speedtest and then the Hub says “your Internet sucks” or whatever.

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:28 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

 

I'm not coming up with my own anything. I'm not having to code anything. It's 
standards. Standards that Calix took and pay-walled.

 

The software I'm using is the same software Calix forked.



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Darin Steffl" mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:59:49 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

I'd say I have the technical ability to do something other than Calix but you 
are correct, I do not have the desire to do anything else.

 

I'm bu

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Robert Andrews]

That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road 
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all the 
weird places...


On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed. A 
few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think I got 
down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But even then, 
the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.


But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest, but 
in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most people 
would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett > wrote:


I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7 mbps. 
If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would have worked.



On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K. 
1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD.  You’re going to

need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On Demand,
don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M to
stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
content.

Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
happily use it.

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in for core backhauls
now. The existing technology for distance in a single unit us
roughly 2gbps when trying to cover any distance of merit. Sure
you can do more than that, you can cheat outside link budgets
and ignore your rain region. But if youre talking about most
temperate region backhauls with legitimate reliability thats
the wall.

we keep poking a little more bits/hz out, but that not really
new tech, its all dependent upon smaller and smaller path
budgets, that eventually wont be attainable. so you have to
start doing shorter shots, with more radios, more channel
size, etc. eventually you hit the point where its no longer
economically viable to keep throwing radio and lease costs at
it and youll have to put glass in the dirt.

Duct is whats future proof, fiber is just the current best
long term option for transport. pending some breakthrough
tech, its the only real long term cost effective future
proofish option.

We will hit a wall on demand at some point in the near term as
we run out of things to connect.

Can anybody answer why 256k used to be able to deliver a
decent SD netflix stream and now i need multiple mbps for the
same thing? asking for a friend

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:40 PM Carl Peterson
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:

"Elon started it as a project to raise money, yes. Morgan
Stanley is up valuing it because they don't understand
technology. This project is not even close to spacex's
purpose for existing. If it disappeared it would not have
any real effect on their overall mission."

This isn't really true. There was one primary driver.

1) You need to bring down the cost of launch considerably
in order to expand the launch market to a size where
developing and maintaining a reusable rocket fleet makes
sense but you can't bring down the cost of launch till you
have customers to fill the launch manifest and that spool
up will take years. SpaceX thinks they have solved this by
becoming their own customer for all their extra launch
 

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[chuck]

I guess it depends on if you have to put on a battery backed power supply too.  

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 9:50 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the 844G.

On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman  wrote:

  Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms of 
hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.


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


  On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive 
compared to alternatives.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest


What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into some 
options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty proud of 
their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense for the 
number of managed routers we would be deploying right now. 

I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream 
Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of 
decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to 
sacrifice my firstborn for.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl  
wrote:

  Guys, 

  Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and 
we include the first router free in all our plans. 

  Makes a huge difference. 

  Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz 
channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their 
service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh 
system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.

  We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting 
one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't 
respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi 
speedtests. 

  On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes 
 wrote:

I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue. 
WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or 
it's 
so bad it's just not fixable.

I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service, 
use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.

On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi 
mesh 
> routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends 
> you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to 
> Youtube servers.
> 
> Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to 
> periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to 
> report that their router says they aren’t getting the speed they’re 
> paying for.  We burn a bunch of time checking all the stats, 
including 
> Preseem which shows no problems at all and actual traffic 
consistently 
> to the speed plan they’re on.  When asked what they were trying to do 
> that was slow or when they ran the speedtest, they can’t cite any 
> problems and the speedtests were done days ago and they are just 
> reviewing the Google report.
> 
> One guy said the Google report indicated his dish moved in a 
windstorm 
> so we needed to come out and fix it.  We have all sorts of graphs on 
his 
> signal, SNR, etc. and his dish had not moved.  We had however moved 
this 
> tower onto Preseem for bandwidth management around that time.  
Everyone 
> else is seeing better performance as a result, video streaming, 
gaming 
> and web browsing now play nice together.  I’m wondering if somehow 
the 
> Google speedtest doesn’t like the Preseem algorithms (FQ-CODEL + 
AQM), 
> or if their speedtest is just flakey.
> 
> I don’t have a Google or Nest WiFi to test with.  We have a whole 
list 
> of other reasons why we hate them.  Generally we tell customers not 
to 
> buy them unless they are on a 3.65 GHz AP, but customers like to say 
> screw you and then still expect you to be responsible for their bad 
> decisions.  (Like the customers who select the cheap plan despite 
being 
> told it is too slow to watch

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Darin Steffl]

Ken,

It is definitely becoming more frequent that we hear they don't have any
devices with ethernet, especially Apple households. We tell them to find
one or buy the adapter like you do. Or we can come out and test with
an $80 service
call charge.

We also do not guarantee residential speeds but our goal is to make sure
they get it most of the time. We trust preseem and look at their peak
speeds which is the blue line on the graph to confirm if their connection
peaks to their plan speed. If it does, we assume there's likely no issue
and then check their wifi.

We shut down the customers that "want what they pay for" very quickly. If
you don't, they will be a pain in the butt forever. If they demand it,
quote them an SLA connection at a minimum $500 per month. They generally
shut up after that.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:38 AM  wrote:

> I guess it depends on if you have to put on a battery backed power supply
> too.
>
> *From:* Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 9:50 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the
> 844G.
>
> On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms
>> of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> 
>> Suite 1337
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
>>> compared to alternatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>>
>>> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
>>> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
>>> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
>>> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
>>> Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
>>> of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need
>>> to sacrifice my firstborn for.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Guys,

 Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
 we include the first router free in all our plans.

 Makes a huge difference.

 Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
 channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
 their service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different
 mesh system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.

 We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and
 selecting one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or
 we won't respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth
 wifi speedtests.

 On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes <
 mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
> WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or
> it's
> so bad it's just not fixable.
>
> I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our
> service,
> use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.
>
> On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi
> mesh
> > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search
> sends
> > you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is d

[AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Josh Baird]

For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a
Meanwell SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some very
small micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I really
don't need ~220-240W that this configuration supplies.

The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C which
would require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that the
BCMU360 can supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.

So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and output
power) solution that requires just a single 12V battery that can supply a
48V load?
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Matt Hoppes]

Our answer:

I'm sorry but if you can't plug in to test we can send a tech out if 
you're 100% certain there is an issue, but if it turns out to work fine 
when plugged in there will be a $50 dispatch fee.


On 1/24/20 12:35 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Out of curiosity, what do you tell customers who say they don’t own a 
computer?  Not being hypothetical or argumentative, I am actually 
getting that maybe 50% of the time now.


If they say their computer is a laptop without an Ethernet jack, I tell 
them to buy a $5 Ethernet cable and a $20 USB-Ethernet dongle at Best 
Buy for testing purposes.  But I don’t have a good response to the 
people who have no computer at all, other than a truck roll to test it 
ourselves, which of course is what we want to avoid unless there’s an 
actual problem.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Darin Steffl
*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 11:22 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

I think I replied what we tell customers. We don't support any speedtest 
except what our guide says to do. I'll attach it here. This means no 
Google wifi tests or orbi, etc.


We will still troubleshoot and check Calix for any performance issues 
but if the complaint is simply a speedtest and we aren't getting what we 
pay for, we send them our guide and only accept results following it.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:03 AM Ken Hohhof > wrote:


Maybe start a new Calix thread?  My original post was about the
speedtest built into Google routers and if anyone knew how it worked
and whether it has accuracy problems.

I dislike the Google/Nest routers and discourage customers from
using them, but saying I should deploy Calix everywhere doesn’t
really address my question which comes from customers reporting
alleged problems reported by their Google automatic speedtests. 
That’s a little harder to troubleshoot than a customer calling

because they are having trouble streaming Disney+ right now, or
getting bad speedtest.net  results right now. 
It’s more like my Google report says I haven’t been getting what I

pay you for over the past couple weeks.

Especially confusing, this customer claimed the bad results started
right around the time we added his tower to our Preseem system. 
That’s strange since we’ve been gradually rolling out Preseem for a

year now and it has made things better not worse.  Also Preseem
gives us lots of additional graphs which show this customer’s speed
and latency on real traffic has been picture perfect.  If I look at
Google FAQs and blog posts regarding their speedtest, there seems to
be two variants.  The M-Lab one appears to be quite old, with some
questionable approaches like single TCP connection and avoiding
nearby servers, as well as currently undergoing a major TCP/IP
algorithm change based on a change in philosophy regarding what
constitutes congestion, and packet loss vs bufferbloat.  But it
sounds like the speedtest built into the Google routers may test to
Google servers, specifically Youtube.

If built in automated speedtests are a trend, I expect to hear more
of these complaints.  Even if you provide a managed “residential
gateway” type of solution, you can’t stop people from putting their
own networking devices behind it.  All the major vendors are trying
to sell smart home ecosystems that integrate with or are controlled
by a router type device.  If you’ve bought into the Google Nest
ecosystem, you have your Nest Thermostat, Nest Hubs, Nest Minis,
Google Home, all talking to your Nest WiFi mesh system.  You tell
your Nest Hub “Hey Google, check my Internet speed” and the Nest Hub
tells the Nest WiFi to run a speedtest and then the Hub says “your
Internet sucks” or whatever.

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:28 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

I'm not coming up with my own anything. I'm not having to code
anything. It's standards. Standards that Calix took and pay-walled.

The software I'm using is the same software Calix forked.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

[Darin Steffl]

I didn't find it hard to get 1000+ of these deployed over 2 years. We are a
small wisp and we've only emailed existing customers about it twice and
many switch to it. Also anytime a customer calls and doesn't have one, we
upsell.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Calix CPE is probably an easier decision for a FISP, or for a new WISP
> just starting deployment, or for a big provider that deploys a pallet load
> of routers every day.
>
>
>
> For an established small WISP with maybe a couple thousand existing
> customers and a modest number of new customers monthly, converting to Calix
> and meeting their minimums for cloud features can be troublesome.  It’s
> also easier for a big carrier to just put a team of people from their CPE
> department on getting it done.  For a small WISP, it’s one more project for
> the head techie.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
>
>
> Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the
> 844G.
>
> On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms
> of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> 
> Suite 1337
> 
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
> compared to alternatives.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's Dream
> Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple of
> decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need to
> sacrifice my firstborn for.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
>
>
> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and we
> include the first router free in all our plans.
>
>
>
> Makes a huge difference.
>
>
>
> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz channel
> away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that their
> service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different mesh
> system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>
>
>
> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
> respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi
> speedtests.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
> I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
> WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's
> so bad it's just not fixable.
>
> I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service,
> use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.
>
> On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh
> > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest as the one a Google search sends
> > you to?  Their FAQ seems to indicate it is different and tests to
> > Youtube servers.
> >
> > Apparently they have a feature where customers can set it up to
> > periodically test their speed, and now I have customers calling in to
> > report that their router says t

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Darin Steffl]

Matt,

That response works but I believe you also need to suggest options for them
to achieve the same thing like purchasing the USB ethernet adapter for
example.

I find customers like options or more than one choice.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:52 AM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Our answer:
>
> I'm sorry but if you can't plug in to test we can send a tech out if
> you're 100% certain there is an issue, but if it turns out to work fine
> when plugged in there will be a $50 dispatch fee.
>
> On 1/24/20 12:35 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Out of curiosity, what do you tell customers who say they don’t own a
> > computer?  Not being hypothetical or argumentative, I am actually
> > getting that maybe 50% of the time now.
> >
> > If they say their computer is a laptop without an Ethernet jack, I tell
> > them to buy a $5 Ethernet cable and a $20 USB-Ethernet dongle at Best
> > Buy for testing purposes.  But I don’t have a good response to the
> > people who have no computer at all, other than a truck roll to test it
> > ourselves, which of course is what we want to avoid unless there’s an
> > actual problem.
> >
> > *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Darin Steffl
> > *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 11:22 AM
> > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
> >
> > I think I replied what we tell customers. We don't support any speedtest
> > except what our guide says to do. I'll attach it here. This means no
> > Google wifi tests or orbi, etc.
> >
> > We will still troubleshoot and check Calix for any performance issues
> > but if the complaint is simply a speedtest and we aren't getting what we
> > pay for, we send them our guide and only accept results following it.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:03 AM Ken Hohhof  > > wrote:
> >
> > Maybe start a new Calix thread?  My original post was about the
> > speedtest built into Google routers and if anyone knew how it worked
> > and whether it has accuracy problems.
> >
> > I dislike the Google/Nest routers and discourage customers from
> > using them, but saying I should deploy Calix everywhere doesn’t
> > really address my question which comes from customers reporting
> > alleged problems reported by their Google automatic speedtests.
> > That’s a little harder to troubleshoot than a customer calling
> > because they are having trouble streaming Disney+ right now, or
> > getting bad speedtest.net  results right now.
> > It’s more like my Google report says I haven’t been getting what I
> > pay you for over the past couple weeks.
> >
> > Especially confusing, this customer claimed the bad results started
> > right around the time we added his tower to our Preseem system.
> > That’s strange since we’ve been gradually rolling out Preseem for a
> > year now and it has made things better not worse.  Also Preseem
> > gives us lots of additional graphs which show this customer’s speed
> > and latency on real traffic has been picture perfect.  If I look at
> > Google FAQs and blog posts regarding their speedtest, there seems to
> > be two variants.  The M-Lab one appears to be quite old, with some
> > questionable approaches like single TCP connection and avoiding
> > nearby servers, as well as currently undergoing a major TCP/IP
> > algorithm change based on a change in philosophy regarding what
> > constitutes congestion, and packet loss vs bufferbloat.  But it
> > sounds like the speedtest built into the Google routers may test to
> > Google servers, specifically Youtube.
> >
> > If built in automated speedtests are a trend, I expect to hear more
> > of these complaints.  Even if you provide a managed “residential
> > gateway” type of solution, you can’t stop people from putting their
> > own networking devices behind it.  All the major vendors are trying
> > to sell smart home ecosystems that integrate with or are controlled
> > by a router type device.  If you’ve bought into the Google Nest
> > ecosystem, you have your Nest Thermostat, Nest Hubs, Nest Minis,
> > Google Home, all talking to your Nest WiFi mesh system.  You tell
> > your Nest Hub “Hey Google, check my Internet speed” and the Nest Hub
> > tells the Nest WiFi to run a speedtest and then the Hub says “your
> > Internet sucks” or whatever.
> >
> > *From:* AF  > > *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
> > *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:28 AM
> > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  > >
> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
> >
> > I'm not coming up with my own anything. I'm not having to code
> > anything. It's standards. Standards that Calix took and pay-walled.
> >
> > The software I'm using is the same software Calix forked.
> >
> >
> >
> > 

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Bill Prince]

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would 
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double 
that, or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or 
about 3 Mbps.


I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if 
you let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps. 
This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.


I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will 
be. To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs 
mid-stream most of the time. The rest, not so much.



bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:
That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road 
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all 
the weird places...


On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed. 
A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think 
I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But 
even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.


But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest, 
but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most 
people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett > wrote:


    I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7 
mbps.     If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would 
have worked.



    On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

    Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
    built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
    hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
    really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
    expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
    but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

    On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

    I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K. 
    1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going to

    need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
    answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On Demand,
    don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M to
    stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
    on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
    content.

    Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
    happily use it.

    *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
    *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
    *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

    we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
    started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
    handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
    that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
    parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
    We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in for core backhauls
    now. The existing technology for distance in a single unit us
    roughly 2gbps when trying to cover any distance of merit. Sure
    you can do more than that, you can cheat outside link budgets
    and ignore your rain region. But if youre talking about most
    temperate region backhauls with legitimate reliability thats
    the wall.

    we keep poking a little more bits/hz out, but that not really
    new tech, its all dependent upon smaller and smaller path
    budgets, that eventually wont be attainable. so you have to
    start doing shorter shots, with more radios, more channel
    size, etc. eventually you hit the point where its no longer
    economically viable to keep throwing radio and lease costs at
    it and youll have to put glass in the dirt.

    Duct is whats future proof, fiber is just the current best
    long term option for transport. pending some breakthrough
    tech, its the only real long term cost effective future
    proofish option.

    We will hit a wall on demand at some point in the near term as
    we run out of things to connect.

    Can anybody answer why 256k used to be able to deliver a
    decent SD netflix stream and now i need multiple mbps for the
    same thing? asking for a friend

    On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 1:40 PM Carl Peterson
    mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>> wrote:

    "Elon started it as a project to raise money, yes. Morgan
    Stanley is up valuing it because they don't understand
    technology. This project is not even close to spacex's

Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Ken Hohhof]

I don’t think so.  Or keeping mind that the BCMU is also providing a DC-DC 
converter function when it is running on battery, you could look for a 12V 
system and then a smallish 12-48 converter.

 

Actually I would not run a 200 watt site off a BCMU or, for that matter, a 
single 12V battery unless it’s a really big battery.  The runtime off a single 
battery won’t be very long, and the recharge time off the BCMU will be even 
longer.  I only use the BCMU at small sites like you describe because the 
battery charging current is so low, it could take days to recharge the 
batteries.  If I need > 100 watts, I’m using the BMU.

 

What size battery are you using, something like 100 Ah?  One thought would be 
to use 4 smaller batteries.  I have a lot of sites with 4 x 22 Ah batteries.  
They fit in the bottom of our 24x30x10 NEMA boxes, and I prefer to series 
batteries rather than parallel.  4 x 22 Ah is roughly comparable to 1 x 100 Ah. 
 If you can’t fit 4 x 22 Ah, maybe 4 x 9 Ah.  I think I have at least one site 
with a BCMU and just a single 9 Ah battery, but I think that site also has a 
whole farm generator and the battery backup is mainly to cover the time for the 
generator to come online.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Josh Baird
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
To: AFMUG 
Subject: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

 

For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a Meanwell 
SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some very small 
micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I really don't need 
~220-240W that this configuration supplies.  

 

The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C which would 
require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that the BCMU360 can 
supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.

 

So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and output power) 
solution that requires just a single 12V battery that can supply a 48V load?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

[Matt Hoppes]

Absolutely... some people just want it "fixed" or to be shown what's 
wrong though.


On 1/24/20 12:59 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:

Matt,

That response works but I believe you also need to suggest options for 
them to achieve the same thing like purchasing the USB ethernet adapter 
for example.


I find customers like options or more than one choice.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:52 AM Matt Hoppes 
> wrote:


Our answer:

I'm sorry but if you can't plug in to test we can send a tech out if
you're 100% certain there is an issue, but if it turns out to work fine
when plugged in there will be a $50 dispatch fee.

On 1/24/20 12:35 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
 > Out of curiosity, what do you tell customers who say they don’t
own a
 > computer?  Not being hypothetical or argumentative, I am actually
 > getting that maybe 50% of the time now.
 >
 > If they say their computer is a laptop without an Ethernet jack,
I tell
 > them to buy a $5 Ethernet cable and a $20 USB-Ethernet dongle at
Best
 > Buy for testing purposes.  But I don’t have a good response to the
 > people who have no computer at all, other than a truck roll to
test it
 > ourselves, which of course is what we want to avoid unless
there’s an
 > actual problem.
 >
 > *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Darin Steffl
 > *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 11:22 AM
 > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
 > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
 >
 > I think I replied what we tell customers. We don't support any
speedtest
 > except what our guide says to do. I'll attach it here. This means no
 > Google wifi tests or orbi, etc.
 >
 > We will still troubleshoot and check Calix for any performance
issues
 > but if the complaint is simply a speedtest and we aren't getting
what we
 > pay for, we send them our guide and only accept results following it.
 >
 > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:03 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >     Maybe start a new Calix thread?  My original post was about the
 >     speedtest built into Google routers and if anyone knew how it
worked
 >     and whether it has accuracy problems.
 >
 >     I dislike the Google/Nest routers and discourage customers from
 >     using them, but saying I should deploy Calix everywhere doesn’t
 >     really address my question which comes from customers reporting
 >     alleged problems reported by their Google automatic speedtests.
 >     That’s a little harder to troubleshoot than a customer calling
 >     because they are having trouble streaming Disney+ right now, or
 >     getting bad speedtest.net 
 results right now.
 >     It’s more like my Google report says I haven’t been getting
what I
 >     pay you for over the past couple weeks.
 >
 >     Especially confusing, this customer claimed the bad results
started
 >     right around the time we added his tower to our Preseem system.
 >     That’s strange since we’ve been gradually rolling out Preseem
for a
 >     year now and it has made things better not worse.  Also Preseem
 >     gives us lots of additional graphs which show this customer’s
speed
 >     and latency on real traffic has been picture perfect.  If I
look at
 >     Google FAQs and blog posts regarding their speedtest, there
seems to
 >     be two variants.  The M-Lab one appears to be quite old, with
some
 >     questionable approaches like single TCP connection and avoiding
 >     nearby servers, as well as currently undergoing a major TCP/IP
 >     algorithm change based on a change in philosophy regarding what
 >     constitutes congestion, and packet loss vs bufferbloat.  But it
 >     sounds like the speedtest built into the Google routers may
test to
 >     Google servers, specifically Youtube.
 >
 >     If built in automated speedtests are a trend, I expect to
hear more
 >     of these complaints.  Even if you provide a managed “residential
 >     gateway” type of solution, you can’t stop people from putting
their
 >     own networking devices behind it.  All the major vendors are
trying
 >     to sell smart home ecosystems that integrate with or are
controlled
 >     by a router type device.  If you’ve bought into the Google Nest
 >     ecosystem, you have your Nest Thermostat, Nest Hubs, Nest Minis,
 >     Google Home, all talking to your Nest WiFi mesh system.  You tell
 >     your Nest Hub “Hey Google, check my Internet speed” and the
Nest Hub
 >     tells the Nest WiFi to run a speedtest and then the Hub sa

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Ken Hohhof]

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is 
actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but now I 
actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK, your 
Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as good 
as Netflix, well, there you go.

I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS lookup 
on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than some anonymous 
CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's traffic to tell him 
what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few seconds to say it's 
Netflix.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would 
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that, or 
1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3 Mbps.

I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if you let 
it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps. 
This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will be. To 
date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs mid-stream most 
of the time. The rest, not so much.


bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road 
> complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all 
> the weird places...
>
> On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>> Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed. 
>> A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think 
>> I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But 
>> even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.
>>
>> But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest, 
>> but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most 
>> people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett > > wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7 
>> mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would 
>> have worked.
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>> Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
>>> built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
>>> hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
>>> really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
>>> expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
>>> but I thought that was an actual resolution standard
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K. 
>>> 1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going 
>>> to
>>> need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
>>> answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On 
>>> Demand,
>>> don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M 
>>> to
>>> stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
>>> on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
>>> happily use it.
>>>
>>> *From:* AF >> > *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> >
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future
>>>
>>> we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
>>> started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
>>> handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
>>> that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
>>> parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
>>> We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in for core 
>>> backhauls
>>> now. The existing technology for distance in a single unit 
>>> us
>>> roughly 2gbps when trying to cover any distance of merit. 
>>> Sure
>>> you can do more than that, you can cheat outside link 
>>> budgets
>>> and ignore your rain region. But if youre talking about most
>>> temperate region backhauls with legitimate reliability thats
>>> the wall.
>>>
>>> we keep poking a little more bits/hz out, but that not 
>>> really
>>> new tech, its all dependent upon smaller and smaller path
>>> budgets, that eventually wont be att

Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Ken Hohhof]

Sorry, I got the acronyms wrong.  I think I meant that at larger sites we’re 
using the BCM, or TSP-BCM, or whatever it’s called.  The one that controls the 
power supply and powers the loads at the battery voltage.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:06 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

 

I don’t think so.  Or keeping mind that the BCMU is also providing a DC-DC 
converter function when it is running on battery, you could look for a 12V 
system and then a smallish 12-48 converter.

 

Actually I would not run a 200 watt site off a BCMU or, for that matter, a 
single 12V battery unless it’s a really big battery.  The runtime off a single 
battery won’t be very long, and the recharge time off the BCMU will be even 
longer.  I only use the BCMU at small sites like you describe because the 
battery charging current is so low, it could take days to recharge the 
batteries.  If I need > 100 watts, I’m using the BMU.

 

What size battery are you using, something like 100 Ah?  One thought would be 
to use 4 smaller batteries.  I have a lot of sites with 4 x 22 Ah batteries.  
They fit in the bottom of our 24x30x10 NEMA boxes, and I prefer to series 
batteries rather than parallel.  4 x 22 Ah is roughly comparable to 1 x 100 Ah. 
 If you can’t fit 4 x 22 Ah, maybe 4 x 9 Ah.  I think I have at least one site 
with a BCMU and just a single 9 Ah battery, but I think that site also has a 
whole farm generator and the battery backup is mainly to cover the time for the 
generator to come online.

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Josh Baird
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
To: AFMUG mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

 

For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a Meanwell 
SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some very small 
micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I really don't need 
~220-240W that this configuration supplies.  

 

The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C which would 
require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that the BCMU360 can 
supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.

 

So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and output power) 
solution that requires just a single 12V battery that can supply a 48V load?

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[chuck]

I love the my internet is not working but netflix is working
Takes some folks a bit for that to soak in.

-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof

Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:11 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is 
actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but now 
I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK, your 
Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as 
good as Netflix, well, there you go.


I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS 
lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than some 
anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's 
traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few 
seconds to say it's Netflix.



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would 
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that, 
or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3 
Mbps.


I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if you 
let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.

This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will be. 
To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs mid-stream 
most of the time. The rest, not so much.



bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:

That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
the weird places...

On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.

But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
have worked.


On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
to
need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
Demand,
don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
to
stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
content.

Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
happily use it.

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in for core
backhauls
now. The existing technology for distance in a single unit
us
roughly 2gbps when trying to cover any distance of merit.
Sure
you can do more than that, you can cheat outside link
budgets
and ignore your rain region. But if youre talking about most
temperate region backhauls with legitimate reliability thats
the wall.

we keep poking a little more bits/hz out, but that not
really
new tech, its all dependent upon smaller and smaller path
budgets, that eventually wont be attainable. so you have to
 

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Bill Prince]

Oxymoronic trouble calls are kind of standard.

bp


On 1/24/2020 10:21 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

I love the my internet is not working but netflix is working
Takes some folks a bit for that to soak in.

-Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:11 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly 
is actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about 
Netflix, but now I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does 
Netflix work?  OK, your Internet works.  If flavor of the week 
streaming service doesn't work as good as Netflix, well, there you go.


I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an 
rDNS lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather 
than some anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a 
customer's traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it 
takes just a few seconds to say it's Netflix.



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it 
would "function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about 
double that, or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double 
that, or about 3 Mbps.


I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if 
you let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.

This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will 
be. To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs 
mid-stream most of the time. The rest, not so much.



bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:

That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
the weird places...

On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.

But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
have worked.


    On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

    Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
    built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
    hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
    really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
    expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
    but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

    On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

    I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
    1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
to
    need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
    answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
Demand,
    don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
to
    stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
    on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
    content.

    Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
    happily use it.

    *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
    *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
    *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

    we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
    started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
    handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
    that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
    parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
    We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in for core
backhauls
    now. The existing technology for distance in a single unit
us
    roughly 2gbps when trying to cover any distance of merit.
Sure
    you can do more than that, you can cheat outside link
budgets
    and ignore your rain region. But if youre talking about most
    temperate region backhauls with legitimate reliability thats
    the wall.

    we keep poking a little more bits/hz out, but that not
really
    new tech, its all dependent u

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Shayne Lebrun]

I always liked the opposite.  Tell them that they're using all of their 
bandwidth, and the answer is 'nobody is using the Internet! So-and-so is just 
watching TV!'

-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 1:22 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

I love the my internet is not working but netflix is working
Takes some folks a bit for that to soak in.

-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:11 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is 
actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but now 
I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK, your 
Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as 
good as Netflix, well, there you go.

I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS 
lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than some 
anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's 
traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few 
seconds to say it's Netflix.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would 
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that, 
or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3 
Mbps.

I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if you 
let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will be. 
To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs mid-stream 
most of the time. The rest, not so much.


bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
> complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
> the weird places...
>
> On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>> Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
>> A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
>> I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
>> even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.
>>
>> But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
>> but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
>> people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett > > wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
>> mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
>> have worked.
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>> Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
>>> built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
>>> hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
>>> really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
>>> expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
>>> but I thought that was an actual resolution standard
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
>>> 1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
>>> to
>>> need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
>>> answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
>>> Demand,
>>> don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
>>> to
>>> stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
>>> on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
>>> content.
>>>
>>> Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
>>> happily use it.
>>>
>>> *From:* AF >> > *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> >
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future
>>>
>>> we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
>>> started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
>>> handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
>>> that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
>>> parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
>>> We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in f

Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Adam Moffett]

I had a number of sites with the TSP-600 + BCM48A.  If I recall 
correctly from the docs, it would use any surplus wattage to charge the 
battery.


So 600W - LoadW = chargingW.

With a 200W load that could take 4x100ah batteries from dead to full in 
12 hours.  I didn't think that was unreasonable charging time.


I never had the 360W units.


On 1/24/2020 1:14 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


Sorry, I got the acronyms wrong.  I think I meant that at larger sites 
we’re using the BCM, or TSP-BCM, or whatever it’s called.  The one 
that controls the power supply and powers the loads at the battery 
voltage.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 12:06 PM
*To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

I don’t think so.  Or keeping mind that the BCMU is also providing a 
DC-DC converter function when it is running on battery, you could look 
for a 12V system and then a smallish 12-48 converter.


Actually I would not run a 200 watt site off a BCMU or, for that 
matter, a single 12V battery unless it’s a really big battery.  The 
runtime off a single battery won’t be very long, and the recharge time 
off the BCMU will be even longer.  I only use the BCMU at small sites 
like you describe because the battery charging current is so low, it 
could take days to recharge the batteries.  If I need > 100 watts, I’m 
using the BMU.


What size battery are you using, something like 100 Ah?  One thought 
would be to use 4 smaller batteries.  I have a lot of sites with 4 x 
22 Ah batteries. They fit in the bottom of our 24x30x10 NEMA boxes, 
and I prefer to series batteries rather than parallel.  4 x 22 Ah is 
roughly comparable to 1 x 100 Ah.  If you can’t fit 4 x 22 Ah, maybe 4 
x 9 Ah.  I think I have at least one site with a BCMU and just a 
single 9 Ah battery, but I think that site also has a whole farm 
generator and the battery backup is mainly to cover the time for the 
generator to come online.


*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> 
*On Behalf Of *Josh Baird

*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
*To:* AFMUG mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a 
Meanwell SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some 
very small micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I 
really don't need ~220-240W that this configuration supplies.


The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C 
which would require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that 
the BCMU360 can supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.


So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and 
output power) solution that requires just a single 12V battery that 
can supply a 48V load?



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[chuck]

I had one where Netflix was perfect, email was fine, browsing was fine but 
Hulu would not work and we needed to fix that.


-Original Message- 
From: Shayne Lebrun

Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

I always liked the opposite.  Tell them that they're using all of their 
bandwidth, and the answer is 'nobody is using the Internet! So-and-so is 
just watching TV!'


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 1:22 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

I love the my internet is not working but netflix is working
Takes some folks a bit for that to soak in.

-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof

Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:11 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is
actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but now
I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK, your
Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as
good as Netflix, well, there you go.

I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS
lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than some
anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's
traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few
seconds to say it's Netflix.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that,
or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3
Mbps.

I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if you
let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will be.
To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs mid-stream
most of the time. The rest, not so much.


bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:

That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
the weird places...

On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.

But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
have worked.


On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
to
need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
Demand,
don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
to
stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
content.

Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
happily use it.

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..

Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Josh Baird]

The charging current on the BCMU360 is significantly lower than that of the
BCM48A/B.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:55 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I had a number of sites with the TSP-600 + BCM48A.  If I recall correctly
> from the docs, it would use any surplus wattage to charge the battery.
>
> So 600W - LoadW = chargingW.
>
> With a 200W load that could take 4x100ah batteries from dead to full in 12
> hours.  I didn't think that was unreasonable charging time.
>
> I never had the 360W units.
>
>
> On 1/24/2020 1:14 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Sorry, I got the acronyms wrong.  I think I meant that at larger sites
> we’re using the BCM, or TSP-BCM, or whatever it’s called.  The one that
> controls the power supply and powers the loads at the battery voltage.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF   *On Behalf
> Of *Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 12:06 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo
>
>
>
> I don’t think so.  Or keeping mind that the BCMU is also providing a DC-DC
> converter function when it is running on battery, you could look for a 12V
> system and then a smallish 12-48 converter.
>
>
>
> Actually I would not run a 200 watt site off a BCMU or, for that matter, a
> single 12V battery unless it’s a really big battery.  The runtime off a
> single battery won’t be very long, and the recharge time off the BCMU will
> be even longer.  I only use the BCMU at small sites like you describe
> because the battery charging current is so low, it could take days to
> recharge the batteries.  If I need > 100 watts, I’m using the BMU.
>
>
>
> What size battery are you using, something like 100 Ah?  One thought would
> be to use 4 smaller batteries.  I have a lot of sites with 4 x 22 Ah
> batteries.  They fit in the bottom of our 24x30x10 NEMA boxes, and I prefer
> to series batteries rather than parallel.  4 x 22 Ah is roughly comparable
> to 1 x 100 Ah.  If you can’t fit 4 x 22 Ah, maybe 4 x 9 Ah.  I think I have
> at least one site with a BCMU and just a single 9 Ah battery, but I think
> that site also has a whole farm generator and the battery backup is mainly
> to cover the time for the generator to come online.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Baird
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
> *To:* AFMUG 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo
>
>
>
> For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a
> Meanwell SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some very
> small micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I really
> don't need ~220-240W that this configuration supplies.
>
>
>
> The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C which
> would require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that the
> BCMU360 can supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.
>
>
>
> So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and output
> power) solution that requires just a single 12V battery that can supply a
> 48V load?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Adam Moffett]

Not personally, but I've seen a post on reddit where someone complained 
that his gigabit fiber was only testing at 770mbps, and how come he's 
not "getting what he's paying for".


You can talk to that guy about window sizes and MTU's, but it's probably 
a waste of time.



On 1/24/2020 1:55 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
I had one where Netflix was perfect, email was fine, browsing was fine 
but Hulu would not work and we needed to fix that.


-Original Message- From: Shayne Lebrun
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

I always liked the opposite.  Tell them that they're using all of 
their bandwidth, and the answer is 'nobody is using the Internet! 
So-and-so is just watching TV!'


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 1:22 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

I love the my internet is not working but netflix is working
Takes some folks a bit for that to soak in.

-Original Message- From: Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:11 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is
actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, 
but now

I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work? OK, your
Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as
good as Netflix, well, there you go.

I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS
lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than 
some

anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's
traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a 
few

seconds to say it's Netflix.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double 
that,

or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3
Mbps.

I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if 
you

let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will 
be.
To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs 
mid-stream

most of the time. The rest, not so much.


bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:

That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
the weird places...

On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.

But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
have worked.


    On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

    Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
    built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
    hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
    really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
    expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
    but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

    On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

    I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
    1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
to
    need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
    answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
Demand,
    don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
to
    stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
    on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
    content.

    Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
    happily use it.

    *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
    *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
    *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/24/20 10:58 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Not personally, but I've seen a post on reddit where someone complained 
that his gigabit fiber was only testing at 770mbps, and how come he's 
not "getting what he's paying for".



I hate those people so much I just tell them a) you're not paying for a 
committed speed and b) find a new provider who will give you that at the 
price you want.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Ken Hohhof]

Yep.  The two products are at opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to 
charging current.  I actually ran into a problem one time because I didn’t size 
the AC breaker big enough.  When the BCM was powering loads plus charging the 
batteries after a several hour outage, it would trip the AC breaker, I think it 
was a 5A breaker and I upped it to 10A.  I figured 600 watts of AC was enough 
given it was a 360 watt power supply, but it would trip the breaker after about 
half a minute.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Josh Baird
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:57 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

 

The charging current on the BCMU360 is significantly lower than that of the 
BCM48A/B.

 

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:55 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I had a number of sites with the TSP-600 + BCM48A.  If I recall correctly from 
the docs, it would use any surplus wattage to charge the battery.  

So 600W - LoadW = chargingW.

With a 200W load that could take 4x100ah batteries from dead to full in 12 
hours.  I didn't think that was unreasonable charging time.  

I never had the 360W units.

 

On 1/24/2020 1:14 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Sorry, I got the acronyms wrong.  I think I meant that at larger sites we’re 
using the BCM, or TSP-BCM, or whatever it’s called.  The one that controls the 
power supply and powers the loads at the battery voltage.

 

From: AF    On Behalf 
Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:06 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'   

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

 

I don’t think so.  Or keeping mind that the BCMU is also providing a DC-DC 
converter function when it is running on battery, you could look for a 12V 
system and then a smallish 12-48 converter.

 

Actually I would not run a 200 watt site off a BCMU or, for that matter, a 
single 12V battery unless it’s a really big battery.  The runtime off a single 
battery won’t be very long, and the recharge time off the BCMU will be even 
longer.  I only use the BCMU at small sites like you describe because the 
battery charging current is so low, it could take days to recharge the 
batteries.  If I need > 100 watts, I’m using the BMU.

 

What size battery are you using, something like 100 Ah?  One thought would be 
to use 4 smaller batteries.  I have a lot of sites with 4 x 22 Ah batteries.  
They fit in the bottom of our 24x30x10 NEMA boxes, and I prefer to series 
batteries rather than parallel.  4 x 22 Ah is roughly comparable to 1 x 100 Ah. 
 If you can’t fit 4 x 22 Ah, maybe 4 x 9 Ah.  I think I have at least one site 
with a BCMU and just a single 9 Ah battery, but I think that site also has a 
whole farm generator and the battery backup is mainly to cover the time for the 
generator to come online.

 

 

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Josh Baird
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
To: AFMUG mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

 

For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a Meanwell 
SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some very small 
micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I really don't need 
~220-240W that this configuration supplies.  

 

The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C which would 
require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that the BCMU360 can 
supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.

 

So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and output power) 
solution that requires just a single 12V battery that can supply a 48V load?

 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo

[Mathew Howard]

ehh... I don't really care if it takes a week to fully recharge the
batteries. Long power outages aren't that common around here...

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:55 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I had a number of sites with the TSP-600 + BCM48A.  If I recall correctly
> from the docs, it would use any surplus wattage to charge the battery.
>
> So 600W - LoadW = chargingW.
>
> With a 200W load that could take 4x100ah batteries from dead to full in 12
> hours.  I didn't think that was unreasonable charging time.
>
> I never had the 360W units.
>
>
> On 1/24/2020 1:14 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Sorry, I got the acronyms wrong.  I think I meant that at larger sites
> we’re using the BCM, or TSP-BCM, or whatever it’s called.  The one that
> controls the power supply and powers the loads at the battery voltage.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF   *On Behalf
> Of *Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 12:06 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo
>
>
>
> I don’t think so.  Or keeping mind that the BCMU is also providing a DC-DC
> converter function when it is running on battery, you could look for a 12V
> system and then a smallish 12-48 converter.
>
>
>
> Actually I would not run a 200 watt site off a BCMU or, for that matter, a
> single 12V battery unless it’s a really big battery.  The runtime off a
> single battery won’t be very long, and the recharge time off the BCMU will
> be even longer.  I only use the BCMU at small sites like you describe
> because the battery charging current is so low, it could take days to
> recharge the batteries.  If I need > 100 watts, I’m using the BMU.
>
>
>
> What size battery are you using, something like 100 Ah?  One thought would
> be to use 4 smaller batteries.  I have a lot of sites with 4 x 22 Ah
> batteries.  They fit in the bottom of our 24x30x10 NEMA boxes, and I prefer
> to series batteries rather than parallel.  4 x 22 Ah is roughly comparable
> to 1 x 100 Ah.  If you can’t fit 4 x 22 Ah, maybe 4 x 9 Ah.  I think I have
> at least one site with a BCMU and just a single 9 Ah battery, but I think
> that site also has a whole farm generator and the battery backup is mainly
> to cover the time for the generator to come online.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Josh Baird
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 11:51 AM
> *To:* AFMUG 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Smaller DC PSU/Charger combo
>
>
>
> For micropops, we typically use some a Traco TSP-BCMU360 paired with a
> Meanwell SDR-240-48.  This is great, but it's a bit overkill for some very
> small micropops (1-2 AP, BH) that we are looking at deploying.  I really
> don't need ~220-240W that this configuration supplies.
>
>
>
> The challenge is that I don't want to use something like an AD-155C which
> would require me to use 4 batteries 12V to get 48V.  I like that the
> BCMU360 can supply a 48V load with just a single 12V battery.
>
>
>
> So - do I have any options for a smaller (physical footprint and output
> power) solution that requires just a single 12V battery that can supply a
> 48V load?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the spectrum
analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using
some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 3.55-3.8ghz
variety.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.
>
> On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
> PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
> with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
> them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
> wrote:
>
>> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
>> high?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>>
>>
>> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
>> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>>
>> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>>
>> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>
>> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>
>> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>
>>
>>
>> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
>> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
>> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
>> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
>> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
>> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems kind
>> of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the
>> second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>
>>
>>
>> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it was
>> low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check for
>> earth stations you never know what they've done.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>>
>> Jamming C band CATV...
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Mathew Howard
>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>>
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>
>>
>>
>> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
>> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>>
>>
>>
>> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license" holders
>> had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>
>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
>> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
>> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
>> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by: Deputy
>> Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent Decree. (DA
>> No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>>  DA-20-46A1.pdf
>> DA-20-46A1.txt
>> 
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

[Jason McKemie]

So are you including this as part of the service or is it an add-on?  Do
you charge an upfront fee?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:52 AM Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> I didn't find it hard to get 1000+ of these deployed over 2 years. We are
> a small wisp and we've only emailed existing customers about it twice and
> many switch to it. Also anytime a customer calls and doesn't have one, we
> upsell.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> Calix CPE is probably an easier decision for a FISP, or for a new WISP
>> just starting deployment, or for a big provider that deploys a pallet load
>> of routers every day.
>>
>>
>>
>> For an established small WISP with maybe a couple thousand existing
>> customers and a modest number of new customers monthly, converting to Calix
>> and meeting their minimums for cloud features can be troublesome.  It’s
>> also easier for a big carrier to just put a team of people from their CPE
>> department on getting it done.  For a small WISP, it’s one more project for
>> the head techie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>
>>
>>
>> Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the
>> 844G.
>>
>> On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms
>> of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> 
>> Suite 1337
>> 
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
>> compared to alternatives.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>
>> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
>> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
>> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
>> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
>> Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
>> of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need
>> to sacrifice my firstborn for.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>>
>>
>> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
>> we include the first router free in all our plans.
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes a huge difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
>> channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
>> their service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different
>> mesh system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>>
>>
>>
>> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
>> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
>> respond to their tests. This eliminates much of the back and forth wifi
>> speedtests.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:34 AM Matt Hoppes <
>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've had a slew of wifi related calls this week.  Plug in, no issue.
>> WiFi -- interference - customer needs to get a dual band router, or it's
>> so bad it's just not fixable.
>>
>> I really just want to tell folks "WiFi is not supported on our service,
>> use at your own risk"... but of course, I can't do that.
>>
>> On 1/23/20 11:54 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> > Anybody know if the speedtest built into the Google and Nest WiFi mesh
>> > routers use the same M-Lab speedtest a

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Jason McKemie]

Wouldn't the incentive be to stop competitors from using that part of the
band?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> The intent here is to stop that. There is no incentive to put up
> placeholder equipment.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Adam Moffett" 
> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:39:30 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> There have already been cases where a speculator pays people to install
> equipment just so they can demonstrate that they're using it while they
> find a buyer.  They paid for much more expensive equipment than a 3.5ghz AP.
>
> Maybe someone squats all the PAL's in a market until Select Spectrum finds
> a cell phone company who wants to pay a few mil for them.
>
> Or is there something in the rules to prevent that?
>
>
> On 1/23/2020 3:08 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> If you buy it but don’t operate in it then the spectrum stays as GAA which
> anyone can use.
>
> I don’t see it as being a good speculative investment play given that it
> returns to GAA unless you are actually using it.  In a metro area it might
> make sense from an investment perspective but in a rural area where there
> are a very limited number of potential users trying to hold the spectrum to
> maximize value is pretty difficult.   If the investor can’t come to an
> agreement with the operator the operator still gets the spectrum as GAA.
> The investor then has to go find an operator willing to utilize the
> spectrum and incur the buildout costs.
>
> The idea behind having spectrum revert to GAA is meant to discourage
> warehousing and speculation on spectrum.   Hard to say at this point if it
> will work out that way, but it’s at least a start at breaking the current
> speculative warehousing the goes on in spectrum.
>
> Mark
>
> On Jan 23, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> You can lease it out, so I doubt it
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:33 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there not going to be a requirement that the companies that buy the
>> spectrum actually utilize it?  If not, that's dumb.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Investors are who will be taking the spectrum. HUGE opportunity.
>>> Commscope is putting together a guidance
>>> I know we will get the credits toward the auction, but I simply dont see
>>> us being able to outbid investors.
>>> unless your in cook county
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:51 PM Jaime Solorza 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Friend of mine still has some ESMR licenses he leases that he got
 before Nextel sold out to Sprint.  Great residual income.

 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 1:36 PM Cameron Crum  wrote:

> My opinion, any spectrum you own is valuable and will only increase in
> value. It's like beachfront property, they ain't making any more of it and
> communication demands aren't getting any smaller.
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> I imagine it depends a lot on the location... I can't see it having
>> much value in some areas.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:41 AM  wrote:
>>
>>> How much do you think it is worth to win some of this spectrum?
>>> There are some that are trying to form consortiums.
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF ma

Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

[Darin Steffl]

Calix used to be an add-on at $50 upfront and $10 per month. We've since
increased all our plans $10 per month and now the first router is FREE and
customers love it. If they need a mesh, it's just $5 per month, nothing
upfront.

This has gotten our take rates 99% for new customers and we've had great
luck upgrading existing customers too because they get a speed increase and
a free router for just $10 more with our new plans.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:47 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> So are you including this as part of the service or is it an add-on?  Do
> you charge an upfront fee?
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:52 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> I didn't find it hard to get 1000+ of these deployed over 2 years. We are
>> a small wisp and we've only emailed existing customers about it twice and
>> many switch to it. Also anytime a customer calls and doesn't have one, we
>> upsell.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>>> Calix CPE is probably an easier decision for a FISP, or for a new WISP
>>> just starting deployment, or for a big provider that deploys a pallet load
>>> of routers every day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For an established small WISP with maybe a couple thousand existing
>>> customers and a modest number of new customers monthly, converting to Calix
>>> and meeting their minimums for cloud features can be troublesome.  It’s
>>> also easier for a big carrier to just put a team of people from their CPE
>>> department on getting it done.  For a small WISP, it’s one more project for
>>> the head techie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the
>>> 844G.
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in terms
>>> of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost savings, too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> 
>>> Suite 1337
>>> 
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>>
>>> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so expensive
>>> compared to alternatives.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>>
>>> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
>>> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>>>
>>> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
>>> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
>>> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
>>> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
>>> Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
>>> of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need
>>> to sacrifice my firstborn for.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
>>> we include the first router free in all our plans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Makes a huge difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
>>> channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
>>> their service will stink until they switch to our router or get a different
>>> mesh system like orbi where you can still set the channel manually.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We also do not support any speedtest except speedtest.net and selecting
>>> one server we like. Also they have to be hardwired to the POE or we won't
>>> respond to their 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Mathew Howard]

Do you really care if a competitor is using it, if you aren't using it? It
seems like it's almost better if a competitor is using it, if you have the
ability to kick them off when you actually do want to use it.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Wouldn't the incentive be to stop competitors from using that part of the
> band?
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The intent here is to stop that. There is no incentive to put up
>> placeholder equipment.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Adam Moffett" 
>> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:39:30 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>>
>> There have already been cases where a speculator pays people to install
>> equipment just so they can demonstrate that they're using it while they
>> find a buyer.  They paid for much more expensive equipment than a 3.5ghz AP.
>>
>> Maybe someone squats all the PAL's in a market until Select Spectrum
>> finds a cell phone company who wants to pay a few mil for them.
>>
>> Or is there something in the rules to prevent that?
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/2020 3:08 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>
>> If you buy it but don’t operate in it then the spectrum stays as GAA
>> which anyone can use.
>>
>> I don’t see it as being a good speculative investment play given that it
>> returns to GAA unless you are actually using it.  In a metro area it might
>> make sense from an investment perspective but in a rural area where there
>> are a very limited number of potential users trying to hold the spectrum to
>> maximize value is pretty difficult.   If the investor can’t come to an
>> agreement with the operator the operator still gets the spectrum as GAA.
>> The investor then has to go find an operator willing to utilize the
>> spectrum and incur the buildout costs.
>>
>> The idea behind having spectrum revert to GAA is meant to discourage
>> warehousing and speculation on spectrum.   Hard to say at this point if it
>> will work out that way, but it’s at least a start at breaking the current
>> speculative warehousing the goes on in spectrum.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> You can lease it out, so I doubt it
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:33 PM Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is there not going to be a requirement that the companies that buy the
>>> spectrum actually utilize it?  If not, that's dumb.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Investors are who will be taking the spectrum. HUGE opportunity.
 Commscope is putting together a guidance
 I know we will get the credits toward the auction, but I simply dont
 see us being able to outbid investors.
 unless your in cook county


 On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:51 PM Jaime Solorza <
 losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Friend of mine still has some ESMR licenses he leases that he got
> before Nextel sold out to Sprint.  Great residual income.
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 1:36 PM Cameron Crum 
> wrote:
>
>> My opinion, any spectrum you own is valuable and will only increase
>> in value. It's like beachfront property, they ain't making any more of it
>> and communication demands aren't getting any smaller.
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I imagine it depends a lot on the location... I can't see it having
>>> much value in some areas.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:41 AM  wrote:
>>>
 How much do you think it is worth to win some of this spectrum?
 There are some that are trying to form consortiums.
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Adam Moffett]

I have less sympathy for them if they went out of their way to get an 
international AP because the US model wouldn't let them cheat.  It's 
harder to believe it was just ignorance at that point.


I knew a guy who used to set all his Ubqiuiti's to "Hong Kong" so he 
could use DFS bands without DFS and ignore the EIRP limit.  I'm like 
bruh you can't even pretend that was an accident.




On 1/24/2020 2:40 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the 
spectrum analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they 
were using some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 
3.55-3.8ghz variety.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett > wrote:


US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.


On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:

I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're
mostly PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since
I've done anything with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me
like you might be able to set them that high... or maybe they
have some non-US radios...

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF
mailto:af@af.afmug.com>> wrote:

Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to
transmit that high?

*LTI-Full_175px*

*Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage,
Cambium ePMP Certified *

Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”

*Link Technologies, Inc*-- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

*Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net


Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com


*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized
operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be
operating on 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of
1.903 and you’re right that this is how they got caught.  No
question that had they not interfered with the ground
station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s
how the unregistered locations ended up part of this.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations
which seems kind of petty, the other is transmitting
above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to assume the second one got
them in trouble and led to finding the first one?

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions -
unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the
oob so if it was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that
don't even make a cursory check for earth stations you
never know what they've done.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

Jamming C band CATV...

*From:*Mathew Howard

*Sent:*Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM

*To:*AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions -
unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

It's interesting that the signal they were
interfering with was in the 3700-4200mhz band. I
wonder what they were doing...

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Isnt that the first 3ghz one?

I wish that more people had been nailed, its said
other "license" holders had no recourse, it took
a fixed station to be interfered with

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy
mailto:thardy...@gmail.com>> wrote:

BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED
INTERNET, LICENSEE OF STATION WQMJ660.
Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed
Internet agrees to $16,000 settlement and
compliance plan resolving investigation into
unauthorized oper

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, well, if they did actually have a radio set to use 3723-3732, I don't
have much sympathy for them anyway. I suppose, one could accidentally get
international radios, and then accidentally, set it to the wrong channel...
but most likely, they were either completely aware they were using a
channel they weren't supposed to be on, and didn't care, or they hadn't
bothered to learn enough about the rules to know they were supposed to be
doing.

On the other hand, if they were just running it at the top end of the band,
and it was causing too much out of band noise for whatever reason, that's a
different story.

There are radios out there (like Baicells, for example), that will let you
use frequencies below 3650, where I could see that easily happening by
accident, but I don't know of any radios sold for US market that allow you
to go above 3700mhz.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:05 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I have less sympathy for them if they went out of their way to get an
> international AP because the US model wouldn't let them cheat.  It's harder
> to believe it was just ignorance at that point.
>
> I knew a guy who used to set all his Ubqiuiti's to "Hong Kong" so he could
> use DFS bands without DFS and ignore the EIRP limit.  I'm like bruh you
> can't even pretend that was an accident.
>
>
>
> On 1/24/2020 2:40 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the spectrum
> analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using
> some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 3.55-3.8ghz
> variety.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.
>>
>> On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
>> PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
>> with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
>> them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
>>> high?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
>>> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>>>
>>> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>>>
>>> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>>
>>> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>>
>>> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
>>> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
>>> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
>>> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
>>> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
>>> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems
>>> kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to
>>> assume the second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it
>>> was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check
>>> for earth stations you never know what they've done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamming C band CATV...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mathew Howard
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
>>> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license"
>>> holders had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>>
>>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LIC

Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

[Jason McKemie]

Gotcha, thanks.

So you are buying your hardware direct from Calix?  Do you have a contact
there?

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:59 PM Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> Calix used to be an add-on at $50 upfront and $10 per month. We've since
> increased all our plans $10 per month and now the first router is FREE and
> customers love it. If they need a mesh, it's just $5 per month, nothing
> upfront.
>
> This has gotten our take rates 99% for new customers and we've had great
> luck upgrading existing customers too because they get a speed increase and
> a free router for just $10 more with our new plans.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:47 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> So are you including this as part of the service or is it an add-on?  Do
>> you charge an upfront fee?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:52 AM Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't find it hard to get 1000+ of these deployed over 2 years. We
>>> are a small wisp and we've only emailed existing customers about it twice
>>> and many switch to it. Also anytime a customer calls and doesn't have one,
>>> we upsell.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
 Calix CPE is probably an easier decision for a FISP, or for a new WISP
 just starting deployment, or for a big provider that deploys a pallet load
 of routers every day.



 For an established small WISP with maybe a couple thousand existing
 customers and a modest number of new customers monthly, converting to Calix
 and meeting their minimums for cloud features can be troublesome.  It’s
 also easier for a big carrier to just put a team of people from their CPE
 department on getting it done.  For a small WISP, it’s one more project for
 the head techie.





 *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
 *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
 *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest



 Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the
 844G.

 On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
 wrote:

 Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in
 terms of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost
 savings, too.



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





 On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

 There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so
 expensive compared to alternatives.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --

 *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
 *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
 *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest

 What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
 some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
 proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
 for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.



 I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
 Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
 of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't need
 to sacrifice my firstborn for.



 On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
 wrote:

 Guys,



 Start heavily pushing managed routers. We're all Calix with 804mesh and
 we include the first router free in all our plans.



 Makes a huge difference.



 Google wifi is bad because there's no way to manually set the 5ghz
 channel away from our radio. We have one customer we told this and that
 their service will stink until 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Jason McKemie]

Maybe this doesn't work the same way, but I've seen big companies deploy
equipment on a band just to hold onto it.  There were minimum service
requirements in those situations, but I'm enough of a cynic that I could
see a big company deploying some minimal amount of equipment just to screw
competition.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 2:04 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Do you really care if a competitor is using it, if you aren't using it? It
> seems like it's almost better if a competitor is using it, if you have the
> ability to kick them off when you actually do want to use it.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:48 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't the incentive be to stop competitors from using that part of the
>> band?
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 8:25 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> The intent here is to stop that. There is no incentive to put up
>>> placeholder equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Adam Moffett" 
>>> *To: *af@af.afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:39:30 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>>>
>>> There have already been cases where a speculator pays people to install
>>> equipment just so they can demonstrate that they're using it while they
>>> find a buyer.  They paid for much more expensive equipment than a 3.5ghz AP.
>>>
>>> Maybe someone squats all the PAL's in a market until Select Spectrum
>>> finds a cell phone company who wants to pay a few mil for them.
>>>
>>> Or is there something in the rules to prevent that?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/23/2020 3:08 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>>>
>>> If you buy it but don’t operate in it then the spectrum stays as GAA
>>> which anyone can use.
>>>
>>> I don’t see it as being a good speculative investment play given that it
>>> returns to GAA unless you are actually using it.  In a metro area it might
>>> make sense from an investment perspective but in a rural area where there
>>> are a very limited number of potential users trying to hold the spectrum to
>>> maximize value is pretty difficult.   If the investor can’t come to an
>>> agreement with the operator the operator still gets the spectrum as GAA.
>>> The investor then has to go find an operator willing to utilize the
>>> spectrum and incur the buildout costs.
>>>
>>> The idea behind having spectrum revert to GAA is meant to discourage
>>> warehousing and speculation on spectrum.   Hard to say at this point if it
>>> will work out that way, but it’s at least a start at breaking the current
>>> speculative warehousing the goes on in spectrum.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can lease it out, so I doubt it
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:33 PM Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
 Is there not going to be a requirement that the companies that buy the
 spectrum actually utilize it?  If not, that's dumb.

 On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:08 AM Steve Jones 
 wrote:

> Investors are who will be taking the spectrum. HUGE opportunity.
> Commscope is putting together a guidance
> I know we will get the credits toward the auction, but I simply dont
> see us being able to outbid investors.
> unless your in cook county
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:51 PM Jaime Solorza <
> losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Friend of mine still has some ESMR licenses he leases that he got
>> before Nextel sold out to Sprint.  Great residual income.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 1:36 PM Cameron Crum 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My opinion, any spectrum you own is valuable and will only increase
>>> in value. It's like beachfront property, they ain't making any more of 
>>> it
>>> and communication demands aren't getting any smaller.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 9:44 AM Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I imagine it depends a lot on the location... I can't see it having
 much value in some areas.

 On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 6:41 AM  wrote:

> How much do you think it is worth to win some of this spectrum?
> There are some that are trying to form consortiums.
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
>>>

[AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Adam Moffett]

I prefer MDU's where the landlord pays for all the connections and 
includes them in the rent, but we have one where the landlord wanted us 
to sell separate accounts to each tenant.


Well turns out we have a tenant with 500meg sharing his WiFi with 
neighboring units.  Found out when a cluster of units near each other 
canceled service.


On the one hand I'm annoyed and frustrated.  On the other hand I realize 
that they could (and surely do) play the same game with the cable 
company and that there's no real technical solution to stop them from 
doing it.  Do you just suck it up as cost of doing business or would you 
go confront the guy?




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Adam Moffett]

and if it matters this isn't like a 2 family house.  This is a 
building with hundreds of units.


On 1/24/2020 4:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
I prefer MDU's where the landlord pays for all the connections and 
includes them in the rent, but we have one where the landlord wanted 
us to sell separate accounts to each tenant.


Well turns out we have a tenant with 500meg sharing his WiFi with 
neighboring units.  Found out when a cluster of units near each other 
canceled service.


On the one hand I'm annoyed and frustrated.  On the other hand I 
realize that they could (and surely do) play the same game with the 
cable company and that there's no real technical solution to stop them 
from doing it.  Do you just suck it up as cost of doing business or 
would you go confront the guy?





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Tim Reichhart]

Cut him off



 
-Original Message- 
> From: "Adam Moffett"  
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
> Date: 01/24/20 04:15 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi 
> 
> and if it matters this isn't like a 2 family house.  This is a 
> building with hundreds of units.
> 
> On 1/24/2020 4:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> > I prefer MDU's where the landlord pays for all the connections and 
> > includes them in the rent, but we have one where the landlord wanted 
> > us to sell separate accounts to each tenant.
> >
> > Well turns out we have a tenant with 500meg sharing his WiFi with 
> > neighboring units.  Found out when a cluster of units near each other 
> > canceled service.
> >
> > On the one hand I'm annoyed and frustrated.  On the other hand I 
> > realize that they could (and surely do) play the same game with the 
> > cable company and that there's no real technical solution to stop them 
> > from doing it.  Do you just suck it up as cost of doing business or 
> > would you go confront the guy?
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/24/20 13:14, Adam Moffett wrote:
I prefer MDU's where the landlord pays for all the connections and 
includes them in the rent, but we have one where the landlord wanted us 
to sell separate accounts to each tenant.


Well turns out we have a tenant with 500meg sharing his WiFi with 
neighboring units.  Found out when a cluster of units near each other 
canceled service.


On the one hand I'm annoyed and frustrated.  On the other hand I realize 
that they could (and surely do) play the same game with the cable 
company and that there's no real technical solution to stop them from 
doing it.  Do you just suck it up as cost of doing business or would you 
go confront the guy?



Is there a "no sharing" type of thing in your terms of service? IMO on 
residential there should be and people caught sharing should be shut off.


Of course they could just go sign up with the cable company and go back 
to sharing, but at least it's not your problem anymore, and if the 
cableco is less reliable some of the others might get fed up with 
sharing and come back.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/24/20 12:55, Jason McKemie wrote:
Maybe this doesn't work the same way, but I've seen big companies deploy 
equipment on a band just to hold onto it.  There were minimum service 
requirements in those situations, but I'm enough of a cynic that I could 
see a big company deploying some minimal amount of equipment just to 
screw competition.



It would screw the competition more to let them use it as GAA long 
enough that they start depending on it, then one day surprise those 
channels are no longer viable.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Adam Moffett]

Is there a "no sharing" type of thing in your terms of service? IMO on 
residential there should be and people caught sharing should be shut off.


Of course they could just go sign up with the cable company and go 
back to sharing, but at least it's not your problem anymore, and if 
the cableco is less reliable some of the others might get fed up with 
sharing and come back.


I'd have to go review the terms as I don't recall specifically what's in 
there.  It's a crime in this state regardless.


I guess I'm just averse to conflict and I'd rather do something to just 
prevent them from doing it.  Maybe I'll have to get all the units lined 
with mylar so they can't share anymore. :)





--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Ken Hohhof]

Can't allow it.  Your customer has agreed to your TOS, the freeloaders have 
not.  If you get a DMCA notice or a subpoena for hacking or kiddie porn or 
soliciting sex with a minor or terrorism or whatever, you need to deal with 
your customer.  Can't do that with the freeloaders.  Customer should also 
understand there is a maybe slim but nonzero chance of a SWAT team breaking 
down his door and handcuffing him and his family at gunpoint if one of his 
neighbors is engaging in terrorist activities with his Internet connection.

Cutting him off could just result in a game of whack-a-mole in the MDU as 
another resident does the same thing.  But I think you have to try.

I don't think you could draw up a legal document for him to take responsibility 
for any TOS violations by the freeloaders.  That would probably only have a 
legal basis if he was reselling service, and you don't want that either.

Part of the problem I suspect is that you're selling him service so fast (half 
a gig if I understand you right) that he can do this without appreciably 
slowing himself down.  On a more modest speed package, I'd be inclined to just 
cut his speed, and when he calls to complain about slow Internet, tell him 
there's just so much traffic on his connection, almost like his neighbors were 
using it.  What's he going to do, cancel?  Yes, please, cancel.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

Cut him off



 
-Original Message- 
> From: "Adam Moffett" 
> To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> Date: 01/24/20 04:15
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi
> 
> and if it matters this isn't like a 2 family house.  This is a 
> building with hundreds of units.
> 
> On 1/24/2020 4:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> > I prefer MDU's where the landlord pays for all the connections and 
> > includes them in the rent, but we have one where the landlord wanted 
> > us to sell separate accounts to each tenant.
> >
> > Well turns out we have a tenant with 500meg sharing his WiFi with 
> > neighboring units.  Found out when a cluster of units near each 
> > other canceled service.
> >
> > On the one hand I'm annoyed and frustrated.  On the other hand I 
> > realize that they could (and surely do) play the same game with the 
> > cable company and that there's no real technical solution to stop 
> > them from doing it.  Do you just suck it up as cost of doing 
> > business or would you go confront the guy?
> >
> >
> 
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Ken Hohhof]

Sounds like the old days when you'd ask someone what Internet service they use 
and they'd answer "Linksys" and you'd laugh but they weren't joking.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi


>
> Is there a "no sharing" type of thing in your terms of service? IMO on 
> residential there should be and people caught sharing should be shut off.
>
> Of course they could just go sign up with the cable company and go 
> back to sharing, but at least it's not your problem anymore, and if 
> the cableco is less reliable some of the others might get fed up with 
> sharing and come back.

I'd have to go review the terms as I don't recall specifically what's in there. 
 It's a crime in this state regardless.

I guess I'm just averse to conflict and I'd rather do something to just prevent 
them from doing it.  Maybe I'll have to get all the units lined with mylar so 
they can't share anymore. :)




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Adam Moffett]

Hahah

Yeah the speed is kind of silly.  We're driven that direction by 
Charter/Spectrum.  They're advertising stupid high speeds these days.  
To win the deal for this building we had to beat stupid speed with 
ludicrous speed.  There's an OLT in the basement so it's actually no big 
deal to provide that speed to them.  But as you correctly point out, 
each apartment has enough capacity for 10 or 20 apartments.



On 1/24/2020 4:33 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Can't allow it.  Your customer has agreed to your TOS, the freeloaders have 
not.  If you get a DMCA notice or a subpoena for hacking or kiddie porn or 
soliciting sex with a minor or terrorism or whatever, you need to deal with 
your customer.  Can't do that with the freeloaders.  Customer should also 
understand there is a maybe slim but nonzero chance of a SWAT team breaking 
down his door and handcuffing him and his family at gunpoint if one of his 
neighbors is engaging in terrorist activities with his Internet connection.

Cutting him off could just result in a game of whack-a-mole in the MDU as 
another resident does the same thing.  But I think you have to try.

I don't think you could draw up a legal document for him to take responsibility 
for any TOS violations by the freeloaders.  That would probably only have a 
legal basis if he was reselling service, and you don't want that either.

Part of the problem I suspect is that you're selling him service so fast (half 
a gig if I understand you right) that he can do this without appreciably 
slowing himself down.  On a more modest speed package, I'd be inclined to just 
cut his speed, and when he calls to complain about slow Internet, tell him 
there's just so much traffic on his connection, almost like his neighbors were 
using it.  What's he going to do, cancel?  Yes, please, cancel.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Tim Reichhart
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:19 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

Cut him off



  
-Original Message-

From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
Date: 01/24/20 04:15
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

and if it matters this isn't like a 2 family house.  This is a
building with hundreds of units.

On 1/24/2020 4:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I prefer MDU's where the landlord pays for all the connections and
includes them in the rent, but we have one where the landlord wanted
us to sell separate accounts to each tenant.

Well turns out we have a tenant with 500meg sharing his WiFi with
neighboring units.  Found out when a cluster of units near each
other canceled service.

On the one hand I'm annoyed and frustrated.  On the other hand I
realize that they could (and surely do) play the same game with the
cable company and that there's no real technical solution to stop
them from doing it.  Do you just suck it up as cost of doing
business or would you go confront the guy?



--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing Wi-Fi

[Brian Webster]

Maybe require them to authorize by MACID or limit them to the number of devices 
they can have on the Wi-Fi? Nothing of that sort is going to be popular but 
maybe then they would realize you are on to them and stop the sharing policy. 
Another option if it is a managed router is to change the password or SSID 
frequently and or make it a real pain for all the others sharing to have to bug 
the paying client? Or is it possible to change the settings on the wireless 
side to not allow devices below a certain signal level to connect? I have seen 
that feature on some access points. Maybe won't stop everyone possible from 
connecting but certainly would make their performance suffer to those outside 
the main unit.

Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 4:30 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi


>
> Is there a "no sharing" type of thing in your terms of service? IMO on 
> residential there should be and people caught sharing should be shut off.
>
> Of course they could just go sign up with the cable company and go 
> back to sharing, but at least it's not your problem anymore, and if 
> the cableco is less reliable some of the others might get fed up with 
> sharing and come back.

I'd have to go review the terms as I don't recall specifically what's in 
there.  It's a crime in this state regardless.

I guess I'm just averse to conflict and I'd rather do something to just 
prevent them from doing it.  Maybe I'll have to get all the units lined 
with mylar so they can't share anymore. :)




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/24/20 13:33, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Can't allow it.  Your customer has agreed to your TOS, the freeloaders have 
not.  If you get a DMCA notice or a subpoena for hacking or kiddie porn or 
soliciting sex with a minor or terrorism or whatever, you need to deal with 
your customer.  Can't do that with the freeloaders.  Customer should also 
understand there is a maybe slim but nonzero chance of a SWAT team breaking 
down his door and handcuffing him and his family at gunpoint if one of his 
neighbors is engaging in terrorist activities with his Internet connection.


Kids being dicks and swatting someone who pissed them off online too.

I've had one that had cops come looking for a fugitive. Customer said it 
wasn't him. I said you're the contracted customer which makes you 
responsible, which means it's your problem to explain to them that 
you're not harboring their fugitive because I don't care.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Robert Andrews]

We find the worst is DirecTV.  More problems when customers are trying 
to download their services over internet than any others.




On 01/24/2020 10:11 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is 
actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but now I 
actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK, your 
Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as good 
as Netflix, well, there you go.

I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS lookup 
on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than some anonymous 
CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's traffic to tell him 
what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few seconds to say it's 
Netflix.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would 
"function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that, or 
1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3 Mbps.

I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if you let it, but I 
found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.

I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will be. To 
date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs mid-stream most 
of the time. The rest, not so much.


bp


On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:

That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
the weird places...

On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.

But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

 I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
have worked.


 On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

 Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
 built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
 hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
 really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
 expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
 but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

 On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

 I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
 1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
to
 need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
 answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
Demand,
 don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
to
 stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
 on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
 content.

 Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
 happily use it.

 *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
 *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
 *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future

 we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
 started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
 handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
 that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
 parts of our network, and we are a tiny WISP in podunk USA..
 We dont put less than 1.2gbps backhauls in for core
backhauls
 now. The existing technology for distance in a single unit
us
 roughly 2gbps when trying to cover any distance of merit.
Sure
 you can do more than that, you can cheat outside link
budgets
 and ignore your rain region. But if youre talking about most
 temperate region backhauls with legitimate reliability thats
 the wall.

 we keep poking a little more bits/hz out, but that not
really
 new tech, its all dependent upon smaller and smaller path
 budgets, that eventually wont be attainable. so you have to
 start doing shorter shots, with more radios, more ch

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Ken Hohhof]

There will also inevitably be issues with services like Hulu and Disney+ and
Apple blocking shared IP addresses because they see too many logins or they
flag one of the customers for using a VPN or proxy and then everybody on the
shared IP gets blocked.

I'm assuming you are handing out distinct public IPs to different customers.

If you're using IPv6, I don't know if the same issues would be relevant.  Or
CGNAT.  Thinking about such issues on a Friday would make my brain hurt.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:43 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

On 1/24/20 13:33, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Can't allow it.  Your customer has agreed to your TOS, the freeloaders
have not.  If you get a DMCA notice or a subpoena for hacking or kiddie porn
or soliciting sex with a minor or terrorism or whatever, you need to deal
with your customer.  Can't do that with the freeloaders.  Customer should
also understand there is a maybe slim but nonzero chance of a SWAT team
breaking down his door and handcuffing him and his family at gunpoint if one
of his neighbors is engaging in terrorist activities with his Internet
connection.

Kids being dicks and swatting someone who pissed them off online too.

I've had one that had cops come looking for a fugitive. Customer said it
wasn't him. I said you're the contracted customer which makes you
responsible, which means it's your problem to explain to them that you're
not harboring their fugitive because I don't care.

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com



-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Nate Burke]

Is this a residential MDU, or business?

Maybe a random 'Cabling' issue causing sporadic connectivity During Peak 
streaming times?  Sometimes those problems are hard to track down.  
Might take days, or weeks


On 1/24/2020 3:53 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

There will also inevitably be issues with services like Hulu and Disney+ and
Apple blocking shared IP addresses because they see too many logins or they
flag one of the customers for using a VPN or proxy and then everybody on the
shared IP gets blocked.

I'm assuming you are handing out distinct public IPs to different customers.

If you're using IPv6, I don't know if the same issues would be relevant.  Or
CGNAT.  Thinking about such issues on a Friday would make my brain hurt.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:43 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

On 1/24/20 13:33, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Can't allow it.  Your customer has agreed to your TOS, the freeloaders

have not.  If you get a DMCA notice or a subpoena for hacking or kiddie porn
or soliciting sex with a minor or terrorism or whatever, you need to deal
with your customer.  Can't do that with the freeloaders.  Customer should
also understand there is a maybe slim but nonzero chance of a SWAT team
breaking down his door and handcuffing him and his family at gunpoint if one
of his neighbors is engaging in terrorist activities with his Internet
connection.

Kids being dicks and swatting someone who pissed them off online too.

I've had one that had cops come looking for a fugitive. Customer said it
wasn't him. I said you're the contracted customer which makes you
responsible, which means it's your problem to explain to them that you're
not harboring their fugitive because I don't care.

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com






--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/24/20 13:53, Ken Hohhof wrote:

There will also inevitably be issues with services like Hulu and Disney+ and
Apple blocking shared IP addresses because they see too many logins or they
flag one of the customers for using a VPN or proxy and then everybody on the
shared IP gets blocked.

I'm assuming you are handing out distinct public IPs to different customers.



Yeah my ISP customer base is small enough that I can afford to give 
everyone a static public IP (v4 and v6), no NAT.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Adam Moffett]

We can't use our powers for evil, Darth Burke.


On 1/24/2020 4:58 PM, Nate Burke wrote:

Is this a residential MDU, or business?

Maybe a random 'Cabling' issue causing sporadic connectivity During 
Peak streaming times?  Sometimes those problems are hard to track 
down.  Might take days, or weeks


On 1/24/2020 3:53 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
There will also inevitably be issues with services like Hulu and 
Disney+ and
Apple blocking shared IP addresses because they see too many logins 
or they
flag one of the customers for using a VPN or proxy and then everybody 
on the

shared IP gets blocked.

I'm assuming you are handing out distinct public IPs to different 
customers.


If you're using IPv6, I don't know if the same issues would be 
relevant.  Or

CGNAT.  Thinking about such issues on a Friday would make my brain hurt.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 3:43 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

On 1/24/20 13:33, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Can't allow it.  Your customer has agreed to your TOS, the freeloaders
have not.  If you get a DMCA notice or a subpoena for hacking or 
kiddie porn
or soliciting sex with a minor or terrorism or whatever, you need to 
deal

with your customer.  Can't do that with the freeloaders. Customer should
also understand there is a maybe slim but nonzero chance of a SWAT team
breaking down his door and handcuffing him and his family at gunpoint 
if one

of his neighbors is engaging in terrorist activities with his Internet
connection.

Kids being dicks and swatting someone who pissed them off online too.

I've had one that had cops come looking for a fugitive. Customer said it
wasn't him. I said you're the contracted customer which makes you
responsible, which means it's your problem to explain to them that 
you're

not harboring their fugitive because I don't care.

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com








--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Mathew Howard]

Exactly. I was under the impression that there weren't minimum service
requirements for the CBRS PALs, and if that is the case, then there's
really no incentive to deploy gear they're not going to use.

But an investor could just pick up the PALs and sit on them until the GAA
spectrum is all full, and then nicely extort whoever is using it...

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:27 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 1/24/20 12:55, Jason McKemie wrote:
> > Maybe this doesn't work the same way, but I've seen big companies deploy
> > equipment on a band just to hold onto it.  There were minimum service
> > requirements in those situations, but I'm enough of a cynic that I could
> > see a big company deploying some minimal amount of equipment just to
> > screw competition.
>
>
> It would screw the competition more to let them use it as GAA long
> enough that they start depending on it, then one day surprise those
> channels are no longer viable.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Mathew Howard]

Same here. At one point, we just started telling people that DirecTV stuff
doesn't work with our service... although I haven't heard of any of those
recently, so it may not be as bad as it used to be.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM Robert Andrews 
wrote:

> We find the worst is DirecTV.  More problems when customers are trying
> to download their services over internet than any others.
>
>
>
> On 01/24/2020 10:11 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly
> is actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but
> now I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK,
> your Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work
> as good as Netflix, well, there you go.
> >
> > I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS
> lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than
> some anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's
> traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few
> seconds to say it's Netflix.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
> > To: af@af.afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future
> >
> > A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would
> "function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that,
> or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3
> Mbps.
> >
> > I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if
> you let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
> > This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.
> >
> > I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will
> be. To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs
> mid-stream most of the time. The rest, not so much.
> >
> >
> > bp
> > 
> >
> > On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> >> That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
> >> complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
> >> the weird places...
> >>
> >> On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
> >>> Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
> >>> A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
> >>> I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
> >>> even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.
> >>>
> >>> But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
> >>> but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
> >>> people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
> >>> mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
> >>> have worked.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>   Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
>   built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
>   hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
>   really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
>   expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
>   but I thought that was an actual resolution standard
> 
>   On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof    > wrote:
> 
>   I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
>   1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
>  to
>   need at least 2.5M though for HD.  So that’s one part of the
>   answer is HD. Some streaming services, like DirecTV On
>  Demand,
>   don’t have adaptive video quality and want a minimum of 5M
>  to
>   stream.  Another factor is “live” video, which is compressed
>   on-the-fly and probably not as efficiently as pre-recorded
>   content.
> 
>   Of course, if the customer has more, video streams will
>   happily use it.
> 
>   *From:* AF    > *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>   *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 2:29 PM
>   *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group    >
>   *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future
> 
>   we are at the end of the wireless backhaul road. when I
>   started 15 or so years ago, we were just moving off a
>   handdful of random T1s to a bonded 6mb circuit backhauling
>   that was nothing. Now we have two gig circuits on separate
>   parts of ou

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Steve Jones]

You have to actually have gear up, it's not like n license where you just
register. It's got to be live and transmitting, and it's verified every 4
minutes

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 3:27 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 1/24/20 12:55, Jason McKemie wrote:
> > Maybe this doesn't work the same way, but I've seen big companies deploy
> > equipment on a band just to hold onto it.  There were minimum service
> > requirements in those situations, but I'm enough of a cynic that I could
> > see a big company deploying some minimal amount of equipment just to
> > screw competition.
>
>
> It would screw the competition more to let them use it as GAA long
> enough that they start depending on it, then one day surprise those
> channels are no longer viable.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/24/20 3:07 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
You have to actually have gear up, it's not like n license where you 
just register. It's got to be live and transmitting, and it's verified 
every 4 minutes



Right, someone gets the PALs, does nothing so it's usable as GAA, then 
at some point later start transmitting in the PAL to kick the GAA users 
somewhere else possibly more congested.


--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Ken Hohhof]

I think the problem with DirecTV on demand is that unlike Netflix it has no 
adaptive video quality.  It’s 5 Mbps or nothing.  Actually if it tests that the 
connection can’t deliver 5 Mbps, you get a message that your Internet is too 
slow to watch now and you’ll have to download to your DVR and watch later.  
Which shouldn’t actually be that bad, except everybody these days is like a kid 
with no ability for delayed gratification.  Download and watch later?  You’ve 
got to be kidding.  I want my movie, and I want it now.

 

I’m not sure what DirecTV does if you start watching and then someone else in 
the house starts using some of the bandwidth.

 

Also there are other offerings like DirecTV Now or AT&T Now or whatever the 
latest name for their OTT service is, I assume that is a little more like 
Netflix and Hulu, or it really would suck.

 

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 5:04 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future

 

Same here. At one point, we just started telling people that DirecTV stuff 
doesn't work with our service... although I haven't heard of any of those 
recently, so it may not be as bad as it used to be.

 

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM Robert Andrews mailto:i...@avantwireless.com> > wrote:

We find the worst is DirecTV.  More problems when customers are trying 
to download their services over internet than any others.



On 01/24/2020 10:11 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly is 
> actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but now 
> I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK, your 
> Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work as good 
> as Netflix, well, there you go.
> 
> I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS 
> lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net 
>   rather than some anonymous CDN or nothing 
> at all.  So if you are torching a customer's traffic to tell him what is 
> maxing out his connection, it takes just a few seconds to say it's Netflix.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On 
> Behalf Of Bill Prince
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
> To: af@af.afmug.com  
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future
> 
> A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would 
> "function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that, or 
> 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3 Mbps.
> 
> I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if you 
> let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
> This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.
> 
> I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will be. To 
> date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs mid-stream 
> most of the time. The rest, not so much.
> 
> 
> bp
> 
> 
> On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:
>> That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
>> complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
>> the weird places...
>>
>> On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>> Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
>>> A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
>>> I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
>>> even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.
>>>
>>> But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
>>> but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
>>> people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett >>  
>>>  >> wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
>>> mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
>>> have worked.
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
  Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
  built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
  hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
  really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
  expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
  but I thought that was an actual resolution standard

  On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof >>>  
   >> wrote:

  I don’t remember ever being able to stream Netflix on 256K.
  1M maybe, and 1.5M still gives you decent SD. You’re going
 to
   

Re: [AFMUG] The Future

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, that makes sense. I've never used DirecTV on demand myself, so I
don't know what it does. I did do some testing with DirecTV now when it
first came out, and it seemed to work more or less like Netflix.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 5:36 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> I think the problem with DirecTV on demand is that unlike Netflix it has
> no adaptive video quality.  It’s 5 Mbps or nothing.  Actually if it tests
> that the connection can’t deliver 5 Mbps, you get a message that your
> Internet is too slow to watch now and you’ll have to download to your DVR
> and watch later.  Which shouldn’t actually be that bad, except everybody
> these days is like a kid with no ability for delayed gratification.
> Download and watch later?  You’ve got to be kidding.  I want my movie, and
> I want it now.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure what DirecTV does if you start watching and then someone else
> in the house starts using some of the bandwidth.
>
>
>
> Also there are other offerings like DirecTV Now or AT&T Now or whatever
> the latest name for their OTT service is, I assume that is a little more
> like Netflix and Hulu, or it really would suck.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 5:04 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] The Future
>
>
>
> Same here. At one point, we just started telling people that DirecTV stuff
> doesn't work with our service... although I haven't heard of any of those
> recently, so it may not be as bad as it used to be.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:54 PM Robert Andrews 
> wrote:
>
> We find the worst is DirecTV.  More problems when customers are trying
> to download their services over internet than any others.
>
>
>
> On 01/24/2020 10:11 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Yeah, Netflix ability to switch video quality / stream rate on the fly
> is actually pretty awesome.  I know we all used to bitch about Netflix, but
> now I actually hold it up as the gold standard.  Does Netflix work?  OK,
> your Internet works.  If flavor of the week streaming service doesn't work
> as good as Netflix, well, there you go.
> >
> > I also like that Netflix traffic is usually identifiable because an rDNS
> lookup on the IP address returns something.ntflxvideo.net rather than
> some anonymous CDN or nothing at all.  So if you are torching a customer's
> traffic to tell him what is maxing out his connection, it takes just a few
> seconds to say it's Netflix.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Bill Prince
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 12:04 PM
> > To: af@af.afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] The Future
> >
> > A few years ago, I did some testing with Netflix. I found that it would
> "function" down to just under 700 Kbps. For SD quality, about double that,
> or 1.5 Mbps. For HD, you needed a bit more than double that, or about 3
> Mbps.
> >
> > I did some more recent tests with Prime. It would consume 5-10 Mbps if
> you let it, but I found that it would "function" down to about 2 Mbps.
> > This function was roughly the same as Netflix SD quality.
> >
> > I periodically throttle all of them, just to see what the effects will
> be. To date, Netflix does the best, and is even able to switch CODECs
> mid-stream most of the time. The rest, not so much.
> >
> >
> > bp
> > 
> >
> > On 1/24/2020 9:37 AM, Robert Andrews wrote:
> >> That's basically what I tell all my RV friends that are on the road
> >> complaining about streaming.   Solves most of their problems at all
> >> the weird places...
> >>
> >> On 01/23/2020 01:17 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
> >>> Yeah, last I looked that's what they said the lowest quality needed.
> >>> A few years back I did some testing with various speeds, and I think
> >>> I got down to somewhere around 500k before Netflix would break. But
> >>> even then, the picture quality was getting pretty ugly.
> >>>
> >>> But seriously... if Netflix defaulted to lower quality (not lowest,
> >>> but in the middle), and made you set it higher if you wanted, most
> >>> people would never know or care... and it'd save a lot of bandwidth.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:14 PM Adam Moffett  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  I'm pretty sure the lowest quality level on Netflix needs 0.7
> >>> mbps. If your rule ended up giving them 256k+512k then it would
> >>> have worked.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  On 1/23/2020 4:10 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>   Way back in the day, when powercode had the old type queue, we
>   built our basic one to buffer at 512 long enough to maintain a 2
>   hour sd stream at 256k with periodic 512k bucket refills. so
>   really it was 512k effectively. It may very vell be that
>   expectations of "standard" definition were different back then.
>   but I thought that was an actual resolution standard
> 
>   On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ken Hohhof    > wrote:
> 

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Mark - Myakka Technologies]

Adam,

e-mail something like the following letter to everyone in the building or at 
least on
the  floor.   Make sure he knows he is 100% responsible for everything
that  happens on his Internet.  We don't get too much sharing, but get
the  occasional  person  renting  a  second house on the property.  We
always  advise the current owner to not share the service.  Explain to
the owner,  if we get an inquiry from law enforcement, we will give them the
account holders information.  When the FBI kicks their door in at 3am,
it  is now up to them, the FBI and the guy living next door to sort it
out.

---
Dear Mister customer.

Thank you for being a valued customer of XYZ Internet company.  We hope you are 
enjoying our services.

We just finished a legal audit of our company and our legal team has advised us 
to make sure our point of contact for each service is up to date.

This audit was triggered in part by a subpoena by the authorities concerning 
one of our IP address being used in a possible child pornography investigation. 
 We want to stress this was a highly unusual event that we hope we don’t have 
to repeat in a long time.

Please review the contact information we have at the bottom of this page.  This 
will be the information we use to respond to any legal inquires.
 
Please  respond  to  this e-mail ASAP stating this is correct point of
contact  or  advise  us  of  any  changes needed.  If we do not have a
response in 30 days, we will call you.

Thank you very much for you time.  If you have any questions, please call us at 
123-456-7890.

Current Point of Contact for service at
123 MTU Street #123
Anytown, FL 77766
John Doe
john...@yahoo.com
123-987-3456



--
Best regards,
 Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.Myakka.com

--

Friday, January 24, 2020, 4:30:23 PM, you wrote:


>>
>> Is there a "no sharing" type of thing in your terms of service? IMO on 
>> residential there should be and people caught sharing should be shut off.
>>
>> Of course they could just go sign up with the cable company and go 
>> back to sharing, but at least it's not your problem anymore, and if 
>> the cableco is less reliable some of the others might get fed up with 
>> sharing and come back.

AM> I'd have to go review the terms as I don't recall specifically what's in
AM> there.  It's a crime in this state regardless.

AM> I guess I'm just averse to conflict and I'd rather do something to just
AM> prevent them from doing it.  Maybe I'll have to get all the units lined
AM> with mylar so they can't share anymore. :)





-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

[chuck]

I just read a factoid that porn is still 2X all streaming combined.

What I don’t understand is where the money for porn comes from.  
Who is paying for this porn?

Perhaps I don’t understand the appetite.  
A commodity that is ubiquitous, free and pretty much all the same but still 
creates huge revenues
Obviously I do not understand something here.  -- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

[Darin Steffl]

Yes purchase direct. They have different sales regions so you'll have to
reach out to them and ask for your rep.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 2:53 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Gotcha, thanks.
>
> So you are buying your hardware direct from Calix?  Do you have a contact
> there?
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:59 PM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Calix used to be an add-on at $50 upfront and $10 per month. We've since
>> increased all our plans $10 per month and now the first router is FREE and
>> customers love it. If they need a mesh, it's just $5 per month, nothing
>> upfront.
>>
>> This has gotten our take rates 99% for new customers and we've had great
>> luck upgrading existing customers too because they get a speed increase and
>> a free router for just $10 more with our new plans.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 1:47 PM Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So are you including this as part of the service or is it an add-on?  Do
>>> you charge an upfront fee?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 11:52 AM Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I didn't find it hard to get 1000+ of these deployed over 2 years. We
 are a small wisp and we've only emailed existing customers about it twice
 and many switch to it. Also anytime a customer calls and doesn't have one,
 we upsell.

 On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 11:27 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Calix CPE is probably an easier decision for a FISP, or for a new WISP
> just starting deployment, or for a big provider that deploys a pallet load
> of routers every day.
>
>
>
> For an established small WISP with maybe a couple thousand existing
> customers and a modest number of new customers monthly, converting to 
> Calix
> and meeting their minimums for cloud features can be troublesome.  It’s
> also easier for a big carrier to just put a team of people from their CPE
> department on getting it done.  For a small WISP, it’s one more project 
> for
> the head techie.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
>
>
> Last time I checked the 844E + Calix ONT was actually cheaper than the
> 844G.
>
> On Friday, January 24, 2020, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Hard disagree.  The 844G is *CHEAP* compared to ONT+WiFi Router in
> terms of hardware.  Having one box/troubleshoot point is a nice cost
> savings, too.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> 
> Suite 1337
> 
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:31 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> There's no way Calix will get a dime from me. Everything is so
> expensive compared to alternatives.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
>
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 23, 2020 12:29:01 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google/Nest WiFi speedtest
>
> What does Calix get you for on the management?  I've been looking into
> some options for managed routers, and I like the 844E, but Calix is pretty
> proud of their management platform and it just doesn't make a lot of sense
> for the number of managed routers we would be deploying right now.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if anyone out there has any experience with Ubiquiti's
> Dream Machine (unfortunate name, since Sony has been using it for a couple
> of decades).  At least Ubiquiti has a management platform that I don't 
> need
> to sacrifice my firstborn for.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:47 AM Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
>
>
> Start heav

Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

[Ken Hohhof]

Maybe they’re talking about live sex cams.

 

But I don’t believe porn is 2X streaming.  Unless there is a huge variation 
with demographics.  I believe 80-90% of peak hour traffic is regular video 
streaming, so porn is in the 10-20% along with email, web browsing, shopping 
and homework.

 

https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-07-02

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 6:35 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

 

I just read a factoid that porn is still 2X all streaming combined.

 

What I don’t understand is where the money for porn comes from.  

Who is paying for this porn?

 

Perhaps I don’t understand the appetite.  

A commodity that is ubiquitous, free and pretty much all the same but still 
creates huge revenues

Obviously I do not understand something here.  

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] MDU tenants sharing WiFi

[Adam Moffett]

Oh interesting.  Let them draw their own conclusions.

On 1/24/2020 7:25 PM, Mark - Myakka Technologies wrote:

Adam,

e-mail something like the following letter to everyone in the building or at 
least on
the  floor.   Make sure he knows he is 100% responsible for everything
that  happens on his Internet.  We don't get too much sharing, but get
the  occasional  person  renting  a  second house on the property.  We
always  advise the current owner to not share the service.  Explain to
the owner,  if we get an inquiry from law enforcement, we will give them the
account holders information.  When the FBI kicks their door in at 3am,
it  is now up to them, the FBI and the guy living next door to sort it
out.

---
Dear Mister customer.

Thank you for being a valued customer of XYZ Internet company.  We hope you are 
enjoying our services.

We just finished a legal audit of our company and our legal team has advised us 
to make sure our point of contact for each service is up to date.

This audit was triggered in part by a subpoena by the authorities concerning 
one of our IP address being used in a possible child pornography investigation. 
 We want to stress this was a highly unusual event that we hope we don’t have 
to repeat in a long time.

Please review the contact information we have at the bottom of this page.  This 
will be the information we use to respond to any legal inquires.
  
Please  respond  to  this e-mail ASAP stating this is correct point of

contact  or  advise  us  of  any  changes needed.  If we do not have a
response in 30 days, we will call you.

Thank you very much for you time.  If you have any questions, please call us at 
123-456-7890.

Current Point of Contact for service at
123 MTU Street #123
Anytown, FL 77766
John Doe
john...@yahoo.com
123-987-3456



--
Best regards,
  Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.Myakka.com

--

Friday, January 24, 2020, 4:30:23 PM, you wrote:



Is there a "no sharing" type of thing in your terms of service? IMO on
residential there should be and people caught sharing should be shut off.

Of course they could just go sign up with the cable company and go
back to sharing, but at least it's not your problem anymore, and if
the cableco is less reliable some of the others might get fed up with
sharing and come back.

AM> I'd have to go review the terms as I don't recall specifically what's in
AM> there.  It's a crime in this state regardless.

AM> I guess I'm just averse to conflict and I'd rather do something to just
AM> prevent them from doing it.  Maybe I'll have to get all the units lined
AM> with mylar so they can't share anymore. :)







--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

[chuck]

Well, that is some of the best news I have heard today.  Hate to think society 
is so depraved that porn is their only interest.  

From: Darin Steffl 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 6:45 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

This porn figure is wrong. I recall seeing some people sharing figures from 
procera or some other DPI and porn was less than 2% of the streaming totals. 

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 7:16 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  Maybe they’re talking about live sex cams.



  But I don’t believe porn is 2X streaming.  Unless there is a huge variation 
with demographics.  I believe 80-90% of peak hour traffic is regular video 
streaming, so porn is in the 10-20% along with email, web browsing, shopping 
and homework.



  https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-07-02





  From: AF  On Behalf Of ch...@wbmfg.com
  Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 6:35 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming



  I just read a factoid that porn is still 2X all streaming combined.



  What I don’t understand is where the money for porn comes from.  

  Who is paying for this porn?



  Perhaps I don’t understand the appetite.  

  A commodity that is ubiquitous, free and pretty much all the same but still 
creates huge revenues

  Obviously I do not understand something here.  

  -- 
  AF mailing list
  AF@af.afmug.com
  http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com




-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

[Adam Moffett]

Maybe it didn't mean 2x the traffic, but 2X the income maybe? Somebody 
is paying for it, and they were paying for it before Netflix was born.



On 1/24/2020 8:45 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:
This porn figure is wrong. I recall seeing some people sharing figures 
from procera or some other DPI and porn was less than 2% of the 
streaming totals.


On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 7:16 PM Ken Hohhof > wrote:


Maybe they’re talking about live sex cams.

But I don’t believe porn is 2X streaming.  Unless there is a huge
variation with demographics.  I believe 80-90% of peak hour
traffic is regular video streaming, so porn is in the 10-20% along
with email, web browsing, shopping and homework.

https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-07-02

*From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com

*Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 6:35 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

I just read a factoid that porn is still 2X all streaming combined.

What I don’t understand is where the money for porn comes from.

Who is paying for this porn?

Perhaps I don’t understand the appetite.

A commodity that is ubiquitous, free and pretty much all the same
but still creates huge revenues

Obviously I do not understand something here.

-- 
AF mailing list

AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com


-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation in 3650 - 3700 MHz band

[Jaime Solorza]

I have seen some international Cambium radios the go from 4.9 to 6 4GHz
I think I asked about the 6Ghz versions on list oncehave never seen the
Cambium 3GHz stuff.

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 12:41 PM Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Yeah, you're right... I think what I was thinking of is that the spectrum
> analyser can scan that range. I wouldn't be surprised if they were using
> some ROW radios, it looks like the PMP450 does come in a 3.55-3.8ghz
> variety.
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:21 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> US models of the 450 definitely won't let you do that.
>>
>> On 1/24/2020 10:18 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>>
>> I checked some of their registrations, and it looks like they're mostly
>> PMP450 and a few Ubiquiti radios. It's been awhile since I've done anything
>> with Canopy 3.65ghz stuff, but it seems to me like you might be able to set
>> them that high... or maybe they have some non-US radios...
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 7:01 AM Dennis Burgess via AF 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wonder what gear they were using. ☹  That allowed them to transmit that
>>> high?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *[image: LTI-Full_175px]*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE,
>>> MTCINE, MTCSE, HE IPv6 Sage, Cambium ePMP Certified *
>>>
>>> Author of "Learn RouterOS- Second Edition”
>>>
>>> *Link Technologies, Inc* -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>>
>>> *Office*: 314-735-0270  Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>>
>>> Create Wireless Coverage’s with www.towercoverage.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Tim Hardy
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 7:21 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the Notice of Violation, they were found to be operating on
>>> 3723 - 3732 MHz which is a clear violation of 1.903 and you’re right that
>>> this is how they got caught.  No question that had they not interfered with
>>> the ground station, this wouldn’t have come up.  Once the FCC finds one
>>> thing, they’re going to look at everything else and that’s how the
>>> unregistered locations ended up part of this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 7:25 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>>
>>> There seem to be 2 issues, one is unregistered locations which seems
>>> kind of petty, the other is transmitting above 3.7 GHz.  I’m going to
>>> assume the second one got them in trouble and led to finding the first one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 5:43 PM
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 320 you could go to at least 3695 on 10mhz. Plus the oob so if it
>>> was low 3700. But jerkoffs like that that don't even make a cursory check
>>> for earth stations you never know what they've done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 5:03 PM  wrote:
>>>
>>> Jamming C band CATV...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Mathew Howard
>>>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2020 3:59 PM
>>>
>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC Enforcement actions - unauthorized operation
>>> in 3650 - 3700 MHz band
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's interesting that the signal they were interfering with was in the
>>> 3700-4200mhz band. I wonder what they were doing...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 4:24 PM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Isnt that the first 3ghz one?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I wish that more people had been nailed, its said other "license"
>>> holders had no recourse, it took a fixed station to be interfered with
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 3:35 PM Tim Hardy  wrote:
>>>
>>> BREVARD WIRELESS, INC. DBA FLORIDA HIGH SPEED INTERNET, LICENSEE OF
>>> STATION WQMJ660. Brevard Wireless, Inc. dba Florida High Speed Internet
>>> agrees to $16,000 settlement and compliance plan resolving investigation
>>> into unauthorized operation in the 3650-3700MHz band . Action by:
>>> Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Adopted: 2020-01-22 by Order/Consent
>>> Decree. (DA No. 20-46). EB. DA-20-46A1.docx
>>>  DA-20-46A1.pdf
>>> DA-20-46A1.txt
>>> 
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.co

Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming

[Jason McKemie]

I'm actually kind of surprised more of the revenue isn't from porn in all
reality.

On Friday, January 24, 2020, Steve Jones  wrote:

> Porn makes a ton of ad revenue. Like most things, the content is only a
> small part of the revenue. I don't know if they get kickbacks from the
> malware, that's probably even more lucrative. You could support an entire
> large volume porn site with quality bukake and top kek scat with the
> revenue generated off the malware
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 9:30 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> I don’t know, I’m getting pretty desperate for stuff to watch on TV that
>> isn’t politics.  I can’t watch the news anymore except 2 minutes for the
>> weather forecast.  Might have to check out this porn of which you speak.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 7:51 PM
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, that is some of the best news I have heard today.  Hate to think
>> society is so depraved that porn is their only interest.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Darin Steffl
>>
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 6:45 PM
>>
>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming
>>
>>
>>
>> This porn figure is wrong. I recall seeing some people sharing figures
>> from procera or some other DPI and porn was less than 2% of the streaming
>> totals.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020, 7:16 PM Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe they’re talking about live sex cams.
>>
>>
>>
>> But I don’t believe porn is 2X streaming.  Unless there is a huge
>> variation with demographics.  I believe 80-90% of peak hour traffic is
>> regular video streaming, so porn is in the 10-20% along with email, web
>> browsing, shopping and homework.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-07-02
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *ch...@wbmfg.com
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 24, 2020 6:35 PM
>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming
>>
>>
>>
>> I just read a factoid that porn is still 2X all streaming combined.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I don’t understand is where the money for porn comes from.
>>
>> Who is paying for this porn?
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps I don’t understand the appetite.
>>
>> A commodity that is ubiquitous, free and pretty much all the same but
>> still creates huge revenues
>>
>> Obviously I do not understand something here.
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com