Re: [AFMUG] RackMount Devices - Handles or No Handles

[Jason Wilson]

Make keyholes for handles?  If you happen to need them slide them on.
Removeable. Keep 1 set in the go bag.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:09 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone has strong opinions about handles on
> rackmount devices.
>
> I'm in the process of switching the enclosure manufacturer on the
> RackInjector and in the process making some design changes that should make
> things better for both us and our customers.  I don't want to share too
> much just in case this doesn't work out - and no, this isn't a change to
> hot-swappable cards.
>
> With the design we're working on, the handles we have on the front of the
> existing enclosure aren't very easy to implement in the new design.   So
> I'm thinking about just dropping them to save the hassle/pain/shipping
> issues/cost/etc/etc/etc.
>
> My personal experience has been that although handles on enclosures are
> nice when removing a device from a rack, they are by no means necessary.
>  On occasion, I've also had handles become a liability instead of a help.
>  But on the other hand, when a device gets stuck in a rack (typically due
> to neighboring devices), it is nice to have them to add leverage when
> removing the enclosure.
>
> I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are...
>
> --
> - Forrest
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 

Jason Wilson
Remotely Located
Providing High Speed Internet to out of the way places.
530-651-1736
530-748-9608 Cell
www.remotelylocated.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] RackMount Devices - Handles or No Handles

[Sean Heskett]

I’d be fine without the handles.

2 cents

-Sean


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:09 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone has strong opinions about handles on
> rackmount devices.
>
> I'm in the process of switching the enclosure manufacturer on the
> RackInjector and in the process making some design changes that should make
> things better for both us and our customers.  I don't want to share too
> much just in case this doesn't work out - and no, this isn't a change to
> hot-swappable cards.
>
> With the design we're working on, the handles we have on the front of the
> existing enclosure aren't very easy to implement in the new design.   So
> I'm thinking about just dropping them to save the hassle/pain/shipping
> issues/cost/etc/etc/etc.
>
> My personal experience has been that although handles on enclosures are
> nice when removing a device from a rack, they are by no means necessary.
>  On occasion, I've also had handles become a liability instead of a help.
>  But on the other hand, when a device gets stuck in a rack (typically due
> to neighboring devices), it is nice to have them to add leverage when
> removing the enclosure.
>
> I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are...
>
> --
> - Forrest
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] RackMount Devices - Handles or No Handles

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I'm wondering if anyone has strong opinions about handles on
rackmount devices.

I'm in the process of switching the enclosure manufacturer on the
RackInjector and in the process making some design changes that should make
things better for both us and our customers.  I don't want to share too
much just in case this doesn't work out - and no, this isn't a change to
hot-swappable cards.

With the design we're working on, the handles we have on the front of the
existing enclosure aren't very easy to implement in the new design.   So
I'm thinking about just dropping them to save the hassle/pain/shipping
issues/cost/etc/etc/etc.

My personal experience has been that although handles on enclosures are
nice when removing a device from a rack, they are by no means necessary.
 On occasion, I've also had handles become a liability instead of a help.
 But on the other hand, when a device gets stuck in a rack (typically due
to neighboring devices), it is nice to have them to add leverage when
removing the enclosure.

I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts on this are...

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

Re: [AFMUG] Commercial Sales

[Ken Hohhof]

Sounds like he is looking for lead generation?

 

I assume he has ruled out (or is already doing) advertising like online, direct 
mail, billboards, etc.  Not sure how a salesperson would approach this, given 
that small businesses generally hate cold calls.  And knocking on doors won’t 
be feasible in an area the size of Pennsylvania.

 

Maybe instead of hiring a salesperson, find a marketing/advertising firm that 
specializes in online advertising.  It seems that getting your name to pop up 
in the web browsers of the right people in the right geographic area should 
generate some leads, and evidently you are good at converting leads to sales.

 

My impression was always that the key to the SMB market was partnering with the 
computer and network consultants, since most companies outsource their IT work 
these days.  “Partnering” being a euphemism for paying commissions.  If you 
don’t pay a spiff and maybe a residual if they renew, some other ISP will and 
that’s who they’ll recommend to their clients.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 9:25 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Commercial Sales

 

I guess I don't understand why you would want to pay a salesperson with a 100% 
close rate. Why not spend the money on either front line phone answering people 
or installers? If you have more than a 2 day wait list it seems pointless to 
guess sales staff. 

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 8:31 PM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

I know you don’t believe it but it’s true. 

 

I see you don’t include pricing on your website. We do. I suspect that 
contributes to some of the difference. 

 

When people call us they’ve already looked at the webpage and aren’t so much 
calling for pricing as much as calling to get service. 


On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > wrote:

Matt,

 

Plenty of people call who are price shopping. They're paying $30 to $55 per 
month with a competitor for worse service. But they call and ask if we can 
offer faster service for the same or less money. We give them our pricing and 
if it's $1 more than what they have now, they go radio silent. This isn't 
everyone obviously but it's a significant number of the 35% who don't commit to 
our service. 

 

I know your numbers are exaggerated because there is simply nowhere near a 100% 
close rate on ISP sales. I don't believe your claim. Sorry 

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:27 PM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

Not exaggerated. 

 

Folks who call us are ready to dump Comcast. It’s barely a sell and more a 
schedule of when we can get there. 

 

Same with businesses who call. They already made their mind up they want us 
when they call. 

 

I’m trying to drum up sales for folks who haven’t called or don’t know of us. 

 

Why would someone call and then not signup?  Literally the only folks who don’t 
signup on the first call are folks outside our coverage area. 


On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > wrote:

I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's literally 
not possible.

 

Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to 
serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for 
residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our minimum 
is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and complaining 
customers. 

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have little to 
no completion. 

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person would be 
drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in. 


On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman mailto:lewis.berg...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe could 
triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a few every 
month you are not currently seeing. 

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> > wrote:

We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep. 

Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber internet 
service. 

Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to assume a 
closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per month?
-- 
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 

Re: [AFMUG] Commercial Sales

[Lewis Bergman]

I guess I don't understand why you would want to pay a salesperson with a
100% close rate. Why not spend the money on either front line phone
answering people or installers? If you have more than a 2 day wait list it
seems pointless to guess sales staff.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 8:31 PM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> I know you don’t believe it but it’s true.
>
> I see you don’t include pricing on your website. We do. I suspect that
> contributes to some of the difference.
>
> When people call us they’ve already looked at the webpage and aren’t so
> much calling for pricing as much as calling to get service.
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> Plenty of people call who are price shopping. They're paying $30 to $55 per
> month with a competitor for worse service. But they call and ask if we can
> offer faster service for the same or less money. We give them our pricing
> and if it's $1 more than what they have now, they go radio silent. This
> isn't everyone obviously but it's a significant number of the 35% who don't
> commit to our service.
>
> I know your numbers are exaggerated because there is simply nowhere near a
> 100% close rate on ISP sales. I don't believe your claim. Sorry
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:27 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
>> Not exaggerated.
>>
>> Folks who call us are ready to dump Comcast. It’s barely a sell and more
>> a schedule of when we can get there.
>>
>> Same with businesses who call. They already made their mind up they want
>> us when they call.
>>
>> I’m trying to drum up sales for folks who haven’t called or don’t know of
>> us.
>>
>> Why would someone call and then not signup?  Literally the only folks who
>> don’t signup on the first call are folks outside our coverage area.
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's
>> literally not possible.
>>
>> Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to
>> serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for
>> residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our
>> minimum is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and
>> complaining customers.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have
>>> little to no completion.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes <
>>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>>
 Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person
 would be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in.

 On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman 
 wrote:

 I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe
 could triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a
 few every month you are not currently seeing.

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes <
 mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep.
>
> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber
> internet service.
>
> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to
> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts 
> per
> month?
> --
> 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] Commercial Sales

[Darin Steffl]

Our pricing is location dependent so we don't want someone in the rural
areas to get pissy when they can't get city speeds. It's just easier to
hide it and provide it once we know their address.

I would say your base $50 plan is too cheap. I'd recommend making your
minimum $60 to $65. It'll have a great impact on increasing your profit and
weed out some of the bad customers.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 8:31 PM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> I know you don’t believe it but it’s true.
>
> I see you don’t include pricing on your website. We do. I suspect that
> contributes to some of the difference.
>
> When people call us they’ve already looked at the webpage and aren’t so
> much calling for pricing as much as calling to get service.
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>
> Matt,
>
> Plenty of people call who are price shopping. They're paying $30 to $55 per
> month with a competitor for worse service. But they call and ask if we can
> offer faster service for the same or less money. We give them our pricing
> and if it's $1 more than what they have now, they go radio silent. This
> isn't everyone obviously but it's a significant number of the 35% who don't
> commit to our service.
>
> I know your numbers are exaggerated because there is simply nowhere near a
> 100% close rate on ISP sales. I don't believe your claim. Sorry
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:27 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
>> Not exaggerated.
>>
>> Folks who call us are ready to dump Comcast. It’s barely a sell and more
>> a schedule of when we can get there.
>>
>> Same with businesses who call. They already made their mind up they want
>> us when they call.
>>
>> I’m trying to drum up sales for folks who haven’t called or don’t know of
>> us.
>>
>> Why would someone call and then not signup?  Literally the only folks who
>> don’t signup on the first call are folks outside our coverage area.
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's
>> literally not possible.
>>
>> Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to
>> serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for
>> residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our
>> minimum is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and
>> complaining customers.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have
>>> little to no completion.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes <
>>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>>
 Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person
 would be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in.

 On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman 
 wrote:

 I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe
 could triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a
 few every month you are not currently seeing.

 On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes <
 mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep.
>
> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber
> internet service.
>
> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to
> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts 
> per
> month?
> --
> 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] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers

[Timothy Steele]

I can't get to that website and I'm out of the country may be a DNS server
or WAN IP you purchased from someone else and it resolves to outside the
U.S?

I have a public WAN with google DNS

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:10 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> I never really thought about that, I figured it was more along the lines
> of the thing with disney when it went live, but that does make me think i
> should see about getting whitelisted
>
> does anybody know a state of illinois contact?
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:54 AM Dan Spitler  wrote:
>
>> My biggest issues with double NAT wasn't so much the double NAT (though
>> gamers hate it) but with a rogue customer doing something naughty and
>> getting their shared IP on some blacklist that is used by any number of
>> random services. CA DMV being a prime example.
>> Be sure to check the IP against e.g.
>> https://www.ipvoid.com/ip-blacklist-check/
>> https://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist-check
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:02 AM Colin Stanners 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A long time ago we had an issue where a banking website wouldn't
>>> function for a specific customer on dual-NAT, but it functioned when they
>>> were put on a public IP. I believe that it was a combination of a
>>> too-strict / over-bureaucratic firewall at the bank's end and the NAT
>>> affecting path MTU discovery somehow. It was too much work to troubleshoot
>>> for one residential customer so I just put them on a public IP.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:46 AM Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 We have been having issues where customers that are NAT (double NAT)
 are unable to connect to the Illinois mytax website. I assume its got to do
 with security of the site and the double NAT. Changing to a public IP
 resolves it, so its not a huge issue. We see that it appends a _/ to the
 end of it so its  https://mytax.illinois.gov/_/ I dont know what that
 is about.

 Is there anything else a guy can do aside from going to all publics? We
 dont do CG NAT because our ratio isnt all that high and we just got more
 ARIN space that we need to clean up and provision
 --
 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] Commercial Sales

[Matt Hoppes]

I know you don’t believe it but it’s true. 

I see you don’t include pricing on your website. We do. I suspect that 
contributes to some of the difference. 

When people call us they’ve already looked at the webpage and aren’t so much 
calling for pricing as much as calling to get service. 

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
> 
> Matt,
> 
> Plenty of people call who are price shopping. They're paying $30 to $55 per 
> month with a competitor for worse service. But they call and ask if we can 
> offer faster service for the same or less money. We give them our pricing and 
> if it's $1 more than what they have now, they go radio silent. This isn't 
> everyone obviously but it's a significant number of the 35% who don't commit 
> to our service. 
> 
> I know your numbers are exaggerated because there is simply nowhere near a 
> 100% close rate on ISP sales. I don't believe your claim. Sorry 
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
>>  wrote:
>> Not exaggerated. 
>> 
>> Folks who call us are ready to dump Comcast. It’s barely a sell and more a 
>> schedule of when we can get there. 
>> 
>> Same with businesses who call. They already made their mind up they want us 
>> when they call. 
>> 
>> I’m trying to drum up sales for folks who haven’t called or don’t know of 
>> us. 
>> 
>> Why would someone call and then not signup?  Literally the only folks who 
>> don’t signup on the first call are folks outside our coverage area. 
>> 
>>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's 
>>> literally not possible.
>>> 
>>> Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to 
>>> serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for 
>>> residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our 
>>> minimum is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and 
>>> complaining customers. 
>>> 
 On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman  
 wrote:
 Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have 
 little to no completion. 
 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes 
>  wrote:
> Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person would 
> be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in. 
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe 
>> could triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate 
>> a few every month you are not currently seeing. 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes 
>>>  wrote:
>>> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep. 
>>> 
>>> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber 
>>> internet service. 
>>> 
>>> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to 
>>> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts 
>>> per month?
>>> -- 
>>> 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] Commercial Sales

[Darin Steffl]

Matt,

Plenty of people call who are price shopping. They're paying $30 to $55 per
month with a competitor for worse service. But they call and ask if we can
offer faster service for the same or less money. We give them our pricing
and if it's $1 more than what they have now, they go radio silent. This
isn't everyone obviously but it's a significant number of the 35% who don't
commit to our service.

I know your numbers are exaggerated because there is simply nowhere near a
100% close rate on ISP sales. I don't believe your claim. Sorry

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> Not exaggerated.
>
> Folks who call us are ready to dump Comcast. It’s barely a sell and more a
> schedule of when we can get there.
>
> Same with businesses who call. They already made their mind up they want
> us when they call.
>
> I’m trying to drum up sales for folks who haven’t called or don’t know of
> us.
>
> Why would someone call and then not signup?  Literally the only folks who
> don’t signup on the first call are folks outside our coverage area.
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>
> I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's
> literally not possible.
>
> Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to
> serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for
> residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our
> minimum is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and
> complaining customers.
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
>> Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have
>> little to no completion.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes <
>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person
>>> would be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in.
>>>
>>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe
>>> could triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a
>>> few every month you are not currently seeing.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes <
>>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>>
 We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep.

 Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber
 internet service.

 Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to
 assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per
 month?
 --
 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

[Mark Radabaugh]

With the underlying license.  

There is something weird there though - a few WinnForum presentations have the 
GPWZ’s expiring by 2023.   I’m guessing that is when the last of the licenses 
that have GWPZ’s expire even though there are NN licenses that last longer.  
I’m guessing none of those later expiration date licenses had registered 
locations in 2015.   Hum… actually that makes sense - to have a license that 
expires in 2025 you would have had to get it on or around 2015 and would not 
have had registered locations at that time.

Mark 


> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:19 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Do the GPWZ areas expire on April 17th 2020 also?  Or they expire whenever 
> the grandfathered NN license expires?
> 
> -sean
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 5:01 PM Mark Radabaugh  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Adam Moffett  > > wrote:
> > 
> > <>
> > 
> > In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you from 
> > interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure they don't 
> > have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call the FCC for 
> > help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment in that case.  
> > If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard to argue that we 
> > should be protected by the old license, and if we're using old Wimax gear 
> > with our old license then we'll be less competitive than someone with 
> > modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more db in the link budget.
> 
> 
> It’s not theory that you will be protected from CBRS interference if you are 
> in the grandfathered wireless protection zones (GWPZ’s).   The SAS is 
> REQUIRED to honor the GPWZ and CAN NOT assign a CBSD a frequency between 3650 
> and 3700Mhz.   You do not need to contact the FCC if you are getting 
> interference from a CBSD - you need to contact the SAS the screwed up and 
> granted the request.
> 
> Note this is a little problematic - you can’t get a 3650-3700 frequency for a 
> CBSD in a GWPZ even if it’s your own equipment.   There is no current 
> mechanism in the SAS to say “It’s my GPWZ and I want to change the equipment 
> I’m using to SAS operation and use the same frequency.   You would need to 
> unregister the existing 90z equipment and then hope that someone else doesn’t 
> get the channel.
> 
> 
> Mark
> -- 
> 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] Commercial Sales

[Matt Hoppes]

Not exaggerated. 

Folks who call us are ready to dump Comcast. It’s barely a sell and more a 
schedule of when we can get there. 

Same with businesses who call. They already made their mind up they want us 
when they call. 

I’m trying to drum up sales for folks who haven’t called or don’t know of us. 

Why would someone call and then not signup?  Literally the only folks who don’t 
signup on the first call are folks outside our coverage area. 

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Darin Steffl  wrote:
> 
> I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's literally 
> not possible.
> 
> Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to 
> serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for 
> residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our 
> minimum is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and 
> complaining customers. 
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman  wrote:
>> Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have little 
>> to no completion. 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person would 
>>> be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in. 
>>> 
 On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman  wrote:
 
 I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe could 
 triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a few 
 every month you are not currently seeing. 
 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes 
>  wrote:
> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep. 
> 
> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber 
> internet service. 
> 
> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to 
> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts 
> per month?
> -- 
> 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

[Sean Heskett]

Mark,

Do the GPWZ areas expire on April 17th 2020 also?  Or they expire whenever
the grandfathered NN license expires?

-sean


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 5:01 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> >
> > <>
> >
> > In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you
> from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure they
> don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call the FCC
> for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment in that
> case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard to argue
> that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're using old
> Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive than someone
> with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more db in the link
> budget.
>
>
> It’s not theory that you will be protected from CBRS interference if you
> are in the grandfathered wireless protection zones (GWPZ’s).   The SAS is
> REQUIRED to honor the GPWZ and CAN NOT assign a CBSD a frequency between
> 3650 and 3700Mhz.   You do not need to contact the FCC if you are getting
> interference from a CBSD - you need to contact the SAS the screwed up and
> granted the request.
>
> Note this is a little problematic - you can’t get a 3650-3700 frequency
> for a CBSD in a GWPZ even if it’s your own equipment.   There is no current
> mechanism in the SAS to say “It’s my GPWZ and I want to change the
> equipment I’m using to SAS operation and use the same frequency.   You
> would need to unregister the existing 90z equipment and then hope that
> someone else doesn’t get the channel.
>
>
> Mark
> --
> 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] Commercial Sales

[Darin Steffl]

I have to assume you're exaggerating with a 100% close rate. That's
literally not possible.

Looking at our stats of current and canceled subs, then comparing it to
serviceable subs who didn't go with us, we're at a 65% close rate for
residential. Very fair in my opinion. We are definitely not cheap. Our
minimum is now $65 monthly but I feel good not having as many cheap and
complaining customers.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 7:13 PM Lewis Bergman  wrote:

> Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have
> little to no completion.
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
>> Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person would
>> be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in.
>>
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe could
>> triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a few
>> every month you are not currently seeing.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes <
>> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep.
>>>
>>> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber
>>> internet service.
>>>
>>> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to
>>> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per
>>> month?
>>> --
>>> 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] Commercial Sales

[Lewis Bergman]

Wow... Sounds like you are to cheap. Just kidding. I assume you have little
to no completion.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:29 PM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person would
> be drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in.
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman 
> wrote:
>
> I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe could
> triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a few
> every month you are not currently seeing.
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
>> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep.
>>
>> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber
>> internet service.
>>
>> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to
>> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per
>> month?
>> --
>> 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] Commercial Sales

[Matt Hoppes]

Our close ratio of leads we get is 100%. So not likely. This person would be 
drumming up new leads that are not organically coming in. 

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 7:16 PM, Lewis Bergman  wrote:
> 
> I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe could 
> triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a few 
> every month you are not currently seeing. 
> 
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes 
>>  wrote:
>> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep. 
>> 
>> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber 
>> internet service. 
>> 
>> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to assume 
>> a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per month?
>> -- 
>> 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] Commercial Sales

[Lewis Bergman]

I would hope an effective sales person in the position you describe could
triple the close ratio of the leads you get currently and generate a few
every month you are not currently seeing.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 6:06 PM Matt Hoppes 
wrote:

> We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep.
>
> Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber
> internet service.
>
> Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to
> assume a closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per
> month?
> --
> 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

[AFMUG] Commercial Sales

[Matt Hoppes]

We are looking at hiring a commercial sales rep. 

Their job would be to sell direct to larger businesses dedicated fiber internet 
service. 

Assuming a sales area the size of Pennsylvania - is it reasonable to assume a 
closed sale count for business fiber customers of 4-6 accounts per month?
-- 
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

[Mark Radabaugh]

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> <>
> 
> In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you from 
> interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure they don't 
> have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call the FCC for help 
> with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment in that case.  If we 
> use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard to argue that we should be 
> protected by the old license, and if we're using old Wimax gear with our old 
> license then we'll be less competitive than someone with modern electronics, 
> another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more db in the link budget.


It’s not theory that you will be protected from CBRS interference if you are in 
the grandfathered wireless protection zones (GWPZ’s).   The SAS is REQUIRED to 
honor the GPWZ and CAN NOT assign a CBSD a frequency between 3650 and 3700Mhz.  
 You do not need to contact the FCC if you are getting interference from a CBSD 
- you need to contact the SAS the screwed up and granted the request.

Note this is a little problematic - you can’t get a 3650-3700 frequency for a 
CBSD in a GWPZ even if it’s your own equipment.   There is no current mechanism 
in the SAS to say “It’s my GPWZ and I want to change the equipment I’m using to 
SAS operation and use the same frequency.   You would need to unregister the 
existing 90z equipment and then hope that someone else doesn’t get the channel.


Mark
-- 
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)

[Mike Hammett]

Yeah, Mike did live in Naperville. I forget at times that there's a cluster of 
people on the list that know where Naperville is. 

I've worked with Liz as well. I've attached her information here. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ken Hohhof"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 5:21:48 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest) 



I remember talking to a Mike Carpinelli at a WISPAmerica, I’d have to dig out 
his card, but I think you’re right he lived in Naperville or something. But I 
also remember various “team” members named Liz, Brian, Scott. I don’t remember 
who did what. I think Liz, maybe last name Christie, was Great Lakes region 
manager? But they should be easy enough to contact and find out who to deal 
with. First step: NDA. 



From: AF  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 12:09 PM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest) 


Hrm, he must have moved. He used to live not far from me. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -


From: "Josh Luthman" < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com > 
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:21:01 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest) 

That's my guy for Ohio. He lives in Kentucky. 






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




On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 9:13 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Mike's my regional guy. He's probably yours too. 



- 
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: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:52:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest) 

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 < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 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 < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
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 < af...@kwisp.com > 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 < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Jason McKemie 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > 
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 < 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 < 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" < j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" < af@af.afmug.com 

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Ken Hohhof]

I don't think anyone WANTS to stick with Part 90, it's just that 2 months isn't 
enough time to transition a bunch of sites and customers.  The starting line 
moved like 5 years and the finish line didn't move.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 1:20 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit on 
mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall you'd much 
rather operate under the CBRS rules

The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for the SAS.

In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you from 
interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure they don't 
have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call the FCC for help 
with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment in that case.  If we 
use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard to argue that we should be 
protected by the old license, and if we're using old Wimax gear with our old 
license then we'll be less competitive than someone with modern electronics, 
another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more db in the link budget.

In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific license 
expires.

RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got 
> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little 
> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April 
> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October 
> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But I 
> know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their 
> license doesn't expire until 2024.
>
> That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A license 
> acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs 
> the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not grant 
> extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>   
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 
> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 
> 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
>> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
>> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
>> registration process.
>>
>> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
>>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> 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)

[Ken Hohhof]

I remember talking to a Mike Carpinelli at a WISPAmerica, I’d have to dig out 
his card, but I think you’re right he lived in Naperville or something.  But I 
also remember various “team” members named Liz, Brian, Scott.  I don’t remember 
who did what.  I think Liz, maybe last name Christie, was Great Lakes region 
manager?  But they should be easy enough to contact and find out who to deal 
with.  First step: NDA.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 12:09 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

 

Hrm, he must have moved. He used to live not far from me.



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




  _  

From: "Josh Luthman" mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:21:01 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

That's my guy for Ohio.  He lives in Kentucky.


 

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

 

 

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 9:13 AM Mike Hammett mailto:af...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

Mike's my regional guy. He's probably yours too.



-
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: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:52:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)

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 mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > 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 mailto: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 mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > 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 mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > 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 mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
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 o

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[chuck]

Hmmm, seems like there used to be a trade show about this time of year that did 
exactly that.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 12:24 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Cambium matt...  
This is why we need more classes from you guys
just this thread alone, look how much unintentional disinformation is here
this is all over the industry
The real time classroom session with people who actually know, because theyre 
on a first name basis with people at FCC and winnforum is necessary
half the CBRS webinars ive sat in on gave half answers, no answers or wrong 
answers
Its going to destroy the industry reputation
PUHLEAEE

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

  In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit 
  on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall 
  you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules

  The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for 
  the SAS.

  In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you 
  from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure 
  they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call 
  the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment 
  in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard 
  to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're 
  using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive 
  than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more 
  db in the link budget.

  In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific 
  license expires.

  RIP NN


  On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
  > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got 
expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little 
unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April regardless 
of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and 
expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But I know at 
least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license doesn't 
expire until 2024.
  >
  > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A license 
acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs the 
full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not grant extensions 
if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
  >
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
  > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
  > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
  > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
  >
  > Yes, that is our understanding.
  >
  > David Coudron
  > david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
  >   
  > Advantenon, Inc.
  > i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 
55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545
  >
  >
  >
  > -Original Message-
  > From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
  > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
  > To: af@af.afmug.com
  > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
  >
  > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
  >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
  >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
  >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
  >> registration process.
  >>
  >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
  >>
  >
  > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
  >
  > --
  > 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] OT porn vs streaming

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

About to start this with the wife...last season is about to start.

She and I just finished Messiahthat was a trip 

Sent from my smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT porn vs streaming
Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2020 9:57 AM

I have taken to binge watching old seasons of favorites like homeland.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 24, 2020, at 8:30 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

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Steve Jones]

its manageable, and can always be added as a recovery fee if it comes down
to it


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:39 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Sounds like a couple bucks per month per CPE.  The number started higher
> and trended downwards.I'm not sure if it's at the bottom yet.
> I was disappointed about the per CPE thing, but it's not an insane cost.
>
>
> On 1/27/2020 4:00 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
> Has there been any indication of what costs are going to be associated
> with the SAS?
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit
>> on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall
>> you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules
>>
>> The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for
>> the SAS.
>>
>> In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you
>> from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
>> they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call
>> the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment
>> in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard
>> to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
>> using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive
>> than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more
>> db in the link budget.
>>
>> In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
>> license expires.
>>
>> RIP NN
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got
>> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little
>> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April
>> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October
>> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But
>> I know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their
>> license doesn't expire until 2024.
>> >
>> > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A
>> license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in
>> 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not
>> grant extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
>> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
>> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>> >
>> > Yes, that is our understanding.
>> >
>> > David Coudron
>> > david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>> >
>> > Advantenon, Inc.
>> > i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
>> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local:
>> 612-454-1545
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
>> > To: af@af.afmug.com
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>> >
>> > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
>> >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
>> >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
>> >> registration process.
>> >>
>> >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh,
>> yeah.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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

[Adam Moffett]

Sounds like a couple bucks per month per CPE.  The number started higher 
and trended downwards.I'm not sure if it's at the bottom yet.


I was disappointed about the per CPE thing, but it's not an insane cost.


On 1/27/2020 4:00 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
Has there been any indication of what costs are going to be associated 
with the SAS?


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett > wrote:


In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx
limit
on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum. Overall
you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules

The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay
for
the SAS.

In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects
you
from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to
call
the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old
equipment
in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's
hard
to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less
competitive
than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10
more
db in the link budget.

In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
license expires.

RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed
licenses got expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example
WQVI696.  I'm a little unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment
becomes illegal this April regardless of whether your NN license
expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and expires April 2020,
so it's moot unless we get an extension. But I know at least one
WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license
doesn't expire until 2024.
>
> That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this. 
A license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one
acquired in 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025? That's just
random.  How can they not grant extensions if some licenses still
have 5 years to run?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com
 |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com   |  3500
Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  |
www.advantenon.com  |  Phone:
800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.   
The FCC
>> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
>> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
>> registration process.
>>
>> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band. 
 Uh, yeah.
>>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> 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

[Steve Jones]

Cambium listed their price already, I dont recall exactly their cost, you
pick the SAS administrator but pay cambium. I think its a pretty slick
deal, pay cambium, you still have direct SAS access if you want but you do
all your magicianhood through cnmaestro. Its a combined pseudoEPC/SAS cost,
single billing. they have a slick way of onboarding and having your grant
ready without having to wait onsite or come back the next day. the price
was very reasonable

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:01 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Has there been any indication of what costs are going to be associated
> with the SAS?
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit
>> on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall
>> you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules
>>
>> The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for
>> the SAS.
>>
>> In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you
>> from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
>> they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call
>> the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment
>> in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard
>> to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
>> using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive
>> than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more
>> db in the link budget.
>>
>> In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
>> license expires.
>>
>> RIP NN
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got
>> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little
>> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April
>> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October
>> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But
>> I know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their
>> license doesn't expire until 2024.
>> >
>> > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A
>> license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in
>> 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not
>> grant extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
>> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
>> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>> >
>> > Yes, that is our understanding.
>> >
>> > David Coudron
>> > david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>> >
>> > Advantenon, Inc.
>> > i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
>> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local:
>> 612-454-1545
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
>> > To: af@af.afmug.com
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>> >
>> > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
>> >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
>> >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
>> >> registration process.
>> >>
>> >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh,
>> yeah.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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

[Jason McKemie]

Has there been any indication of what costs are going to be associated with
the SAS?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit
> on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall
> you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules
>
> The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for
> the SAS.
>
> In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you
> from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
> they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call
> the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment
> in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard
> to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
> using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive
> than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more
> db in the link budget.
>
> In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
> license expires.
>
> RIP NN
>
>
> On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got
> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little
> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April
> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October
> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But
> I know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their
> license doesn't expire until 2024.
> >
> > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A
> license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in
> 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not
> grant extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
> >
> > Yes, that is our understanding.
> >
> > David Coudron
> > david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
> >
> > Advantenon, Inc.
> > i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local:
> 612-454-1545
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> > To: af@af.afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
> >
> > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
> >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
> >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
> >> registration process.
> >>
> >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> >>
> >
> > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
> >
> > --
> > 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

[Adam Moffett]

I do enjoy sandwiches


On 1/27/2020 3:30 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Not wrong, just not complete(ish)
a "grandfathered" NN is not grandfathered simply by being there. there 
was a process we had to go through, most of us missed the window 
because the deadline had passed before we knew we had to. 
"grandfathered" NN has already clearly been marked for removal, in the 
short term, from the protections/exemptions from SAS compatibility. I 
wasnt directing the comment to you specifically, but the broader 
conversation.

It was the sandwiches btw, I just really liked the sandwiches.
But the 450 lady was there, 450 being the only Approved product at the 
time, None of the answers were guesses, they were clear answers or " I 
will check on this" from people who arent going to their bosses, who 
are going to their vendor, who are going to a manufacturer. these 
answers will come back from winnforum, or FCC, pretty much the only 
two places on the planet where you can get an answer. Cambium has the 
inside track in being the manufacturer involved from day one, if they 
have clarification need, they will get them, promptly, and have a 
little pushing power to get modifications in that make sense.

but mostly the sandwiches

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:28 PM Adam Moffett > wrote:


What did I get wrong?

On 1/27/2020 2:24 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Cambium matt...
This is why we need more classes from you guys
just this thread alone, look how much unintentional
disinformation is here
this is all over the industry
The real time classroom session with people who actually know,
because theyre on a first name basis with people at FCC and
winnforum is necessary
half the CBRS webinars ive sat in on gave half answers, no
answers or wrong answers
Its going to destroy the industry reputation
PUHLEAEE

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the
+2dbm Tx limit
on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the
spectrum.  Overall
you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules

The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have
to pay for
the SAS.

In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license
protects you
from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better
make sure
they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they
try to call
the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with
old equipment
in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then
it's hard
to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and
if we're
using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less
competitive
than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8
or 10 more
db in the link budget.

In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a
specific
license expires.

RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed
licenses got expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for
example WQVI696.  I'm a little unclear on whether all Part 96
equipment becomes illegal this April regardless of whether
your NN license expires. Ours was renewed in October 2018 and
expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension. 
But I know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of
time because their license doesn't expire until 2024.
>
> That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled
this.  A license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020,
but one acquired in 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025? 
That's just random.  How can they not grant extensions if
some licenses still have 5 years to run?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com
 |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com  |  3500
Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  |
www.advantenon.com   | Phone:
800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun.

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Steve Jones]

Not wrong, just not complete(ish)
a "grandfathered" NN is not grandfathered simply by being there. there was
a process we had to go through, most of us missed the window because the
deadline had passed before we knew we had to. "grandfathered" NN has
already clearly been marked for removal, in the short term, from the
protections/exemptions from SAS compatibility. I wasnt directing the
comment to you specifically, but the broader conversation.
It was the sandwiches btw, I just really liked the sandwiches.
But the 450 lady was there, 450 being the only Approved product at the
time, None of the answers were guesses, they were clear answers or " I will
check on this" from people who arent going to their bosses, who are going
to their vendor, who are going to a manufacturer. these answers will come
back from winnforum, or FCC, pretty much the only two places on the planet
where you can get an answer. Cambium has the inside track in being the
manufacturer involved from day one, if they have clarification need, they
will get them, promptly, and have a little pushing power to get
modifications in that make sense.
but mostly the sandwiches

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:28 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> What did I get wrong?
> On 1/27/2020 2:24 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> Cambium matt...
> This is why we need more classes from you guys
> just this thread alone, look how much unintentional disinformation is here
> this is all over the industry
> The real time classroom session with people who actually know, because
> theyre on a first name basis with people at FCC and winnforum is necessary
> half the CBRS webinars ive sat in on gave half answers, no answers or
> wrong answers
> Its going to destroy the industry reputation
> PUHLEAEE
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit
>> on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall
>> you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules
>>
>> The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for
>> the SAS.
>>
>> In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you
>> from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
>> they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call
>> the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment
>> in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard
>> to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
>> using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive
>> than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more
>> db in the link budget.
>>
>> In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
>> license expires.
>>
>> RIP NN
>>
>>
>> On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got
>> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little
>> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April
>> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October
>> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But
>> I know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their
>> license doesn't expire until 2024.
>> >
>> > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A
>> license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in
>> 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not
>> grant extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
>> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
>> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>> >
>> > Yes, that is our understanding.
>> >
>> > David Coudron
>> > david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>> >
>> > Advantenon, Inc.
>> > i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
>> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local:
>> 612-454-1545
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
>> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
>> > To: af@af.afmug.com
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>> >
>> > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
>> >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
>> >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
>> >> registration process.
>> >>
>> >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh,
>> yeah.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>> >
>> > --
>> > AF mailing list
>> > AF@af.afmug.com
>> > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.

[AFMUG] FCC certified SAS providers

[Eric Nielsen]

The FCC just certified the first round of SAS providers - CommScope,
Federated, Google and Sony.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-110A1.pdf
-- 
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

[Adam Moffett]

Matt, it's not easy to make Steve happy.  If Steve is happy with your 
course then I'll sign up for the next one right now.


Either this session was amazing or you were handing out free bottles of 
Hurricane and Old English.  .


Either way I'm in.


On 1/27/2020 2:24 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Cambium matt...
This is why we need more classes from you guys
just this thread alone, look how much unintentional disinformation is here
this is all over the industry
The real time classroom session with people who actually know, because 
theyre on a first name basis with people at FCC and winnforum is necessary
half the CBRS webinars ive sat in on gave half answers, no answers or 
wrong answers

Its going to destroy the industry reputation
PUHLEAEE

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett > wrote:


In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx
limit
on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum. Overall
you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules

The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay
for
the SAS.

In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects
you
from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to
call
the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old
equipment
in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's
hard
to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less
competitive
than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10
more
db in the link budget.

In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
license expires.

RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed
licenses got expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example
WQVI696.  I'm a little unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment
becomes illegal this April regardless of whether your NN license
expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and expires April 2020,
so it's moot unless we get an extension. But I know at least one
WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license
doesn't expire until 2024.
>
> That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this. 
A license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one
acquired in 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025? That's just
random.  How can they not grant extensions if some licenses still
have 5 years to run?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com
 |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com   |  3500
Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  |
www.advantenon.com  |  Phone:
800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.   
The FCC
>> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
>> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
>> registration process.
>>
>> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band. 
 Uh, yeah.
>>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> 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

[David Coudron]

Here lies NN

Beloved father of small and medium sized WISPs
Grandfather to early adopters and trailblazers

Survived by CBRS and 5 GHz unlicensed children

😊

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.    
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 1:20 PM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit on 
mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall you'd much 
rather operate under the CBRS rules

The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for the SAS.

In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you from 
interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure they don't 
have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call the FCC for help 
with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment in that case.  If we 
use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard to argue that we should be 
protected by the old license, and if we're using old Wimax gear with our old 
license then we'll be less competitive than someone with modern electronics, 
another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more db in the link budget.

In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific license 
expires.

RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got 
> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little 
> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April 
> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October 
> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But I 
> know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their 
> license doesn't expire until 2024.
>
> That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A license 
> acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs 
> the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not grant 
> extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>   
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 
> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 
> 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
>> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
>> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
>> registration process.
>>
>> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
>>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> 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

[Adam Moffett]

What did I get wrong?

On 1/27/2020 2:24 PM, Steve Jones wrote:

Cambium matt...
This is why we need more classes from you guys
just this thread alone, look how much unintentional disinformation is here
this is all over the industry
The real time classroom session with people who actually know, because 
theyre on a first name basis with people at FCC and winnforum is necessary
half the CBRS webinars ive sat in on gave half answers, no answers or 
wrong answers

Its going to destroy the industry reputation
PUHLEAEE

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett > wrote:


In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx
limit
on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum. Overall
you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules

The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay
for
the SAS.

In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects
you
from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to
call
the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old
equipment
in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's
hard
to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less
competitive
than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10
more
db in the link budget.

In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
license expires.

RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed
licenses got expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example
WQVI696.  I'm a little unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment
becomes illegal this April regardless of whether your NN license
expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and expires April 2020,
so it's moot unless we get an extension. But I know at least one
WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license
doesn't expire until 2024.
>
> That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this. 
A license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one
acquired in 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025? That's just
random.  How can they not grant extensions if some licenses still
have 5 years to run?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com
 |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com   |  3500
Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  |
www.advantenon.com  |  Phone:
800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.   
The FCC
>> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
>> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
>> registration process.
>>
>> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band. 
 Uh, yeah.
>>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> 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

[Steve Jones]

Cambium matt...
This is why we need more classes from you guys
just this thread alone, look how much unintentional disinformation is here
this is all over the industry
The real time classroom session with people who actually know, because
theyre on a first name basis with people at FCC and winnforum is necessary
half the CBRS webinars ive sat in on gave half answers, no answers or wrong
answers
Its going to destroy the industry reputation
PUHLEAEE

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:20 PM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit
> on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall
> you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules
>
> The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for
> the SAS.
>
> In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you
> from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure
> they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call
> the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment
> in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard
> to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're
> using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive
> than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more
> db in the link budget.
>
> In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific
> license expires.
>
> RIP NN
>
>
> On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
> > Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got
> expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little
> unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April
> regardless of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October
> 2018 and expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But
> I know at least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their
> license doesn't expire until 2024.
> >
> > That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A
> license acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in
> 2015 runs the full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not
> grant extensions if some licenses still have 5 years to run?
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
> >
> > Yes, that is our understanding.
> >
> > David Coudron
> > david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
> >
> > Advantenon, Inc.
> > i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local:
> 612-454-1545
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> > To: af@af.afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
> >
> > On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> >> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
> >> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
> >> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
> >> registration process.
> >>
> >> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> >>
> >
> > Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
> >
> > --
> > 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

[Adam Moffett]

In CBRS you'll get higher EIRP, you'll no longer have the +2dbm Tx limit 
on mobile devices, and you'll have access to 3x the spectrum.  Overall 
you'd much rather operate under the CBRS rules


The main reason a person might prefer NN is they don't have to pay for 
the SAS.


In theory you could argue that a grandfathered NN license protects you 
from interference from a CBRS operator, but a person better make sure 
they don't have any of those "bodies in the trunk" if they try to call 
the FCC for help with that. We'd also likely be stuck with old equipment 
in that case.  If we use the advantages of the new rules then it's hard 
to argue that we should be protected by the old license, and if we're 
using old Wimax gear with our old license then we'll be less competitive 
than someone with modern electronics, another 100mhz, and 8 or 10 more 
db in the link budget.


In my opinion NN is dead already, regardless of what year a specific 
license expires.


RIP NN


On 1/27/2020 11:52 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got 
expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little 
unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April regardless 
of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and 
expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But I know at 
least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license doesn't 
expire until 2024.

That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A license 
acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs the 
full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not grant extensions 
if some licenses still have 5 years to run?


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Yes, that is our understanding.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
  
Advantenon, Inc.

i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:

yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
registration process.

You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.



Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

--
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

[Eric Nielsen]

As it stands now, the FCC hasn't made a decision regarding the waiver for
extending NN licenses past April 17, 2020. Some think that since they
haven't made the decision yet, that could mean they won't grant the waiver.
Historically speaking, most blanket waivers have a low grant percentage. I
guess time will tell.
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Adam Moffett]

Good analogy, but more like the other direction.  They wouldn't have 
noticed the broken tail light except they knew there was a dead body and 
they were searching all the car trunks in the area.



On 1/27/2020 12:42 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


And not registering locations.  I guess like having drugs or a dead 
body in your trunk, they wouldn’t have searched the car if your didn’t 
have a broken tail light.


*From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
*Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2020 11:37 AM
*To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

that was for interfering with an earth station outside our band it 
turns out


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:13 AM Ken Hohhof > wrote:


Well that would be bad since they are apparently still issuing
fines for not
having registered locations, based on info posted last week.

-Original Message-
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:00 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 8:43 AM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
> The license expiration date is tied to your specific license.
Most of them
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.


Yeah I know my NN license doesn't expire this year, but it's been
unclear to
me if the FCC expects everyone with NN licenses that don't expire
this year
to shut down on April 17 or not.

I ask because I tried to submit a location registration last week
and the
application disappeared without a trace: the file number doesn't
show up in
ULS or in search but I still have the PDF copy. It makes me wonder if
they're silently discarding any NN related applications at this
point due to
impending shutdown.

-- 
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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[David Coudron]

I believe you are still able to update existing locations.   We have updated 
some locations last week and it looks like this changes were accepted on 
Friday.   We haven’t tried to register new locations though.  These are 
non-grandfathered locations since they were initially registered after 2015.

Regards,

David Coudron

From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:43 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

And not registering locations.  I guess like having drugs or a dead body in 
your trunk, they wouldn’t have searched the car if your didn’t have a broken 
tail light.

From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Steve Jones
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:37 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

that was for interfering with an earth station outside our band it turns out

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:13 AM Ken Hohhof 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:
Well that would be bad since they are apparently still issuing fines for not
having registered locations, based on info posted last week.

-Original Message-
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf Of 
Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:00 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 8:43 AM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
> The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.


Yeah I know my NN license doesn't expire this year, but it's been unclear to
me if the FCC expects everyone with NN licenses that don't expire this year
to shut down on April 17 or not.

I ask because I tried to submit a location registration last week and the
application disappeared without a trace: the file number doesn't show up in
ULS or in search but I still have the PDF copy. It makes me wonder if
they're silently discarding any NN related applications at this point due to
impending shutdown.

--
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] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers

[Steve Jones]

I never really thought about that, I figured it was more along the lines of
the thing with disney when it went live, but that does make me think i
should see about getting whitelisted

does anybody know a state of illinois contact?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:54 AM Dan Spitler  wrote:

> My biggest issues with double NAT wasn't so much the double NAT (though
> gamers hate it) but with a rogue customer doing something naughty and
> getting their shared IP on some blacklist that is used by any number of
> random services. CA DMV being a prime example.
> Be sure to check the IP against e.g.
> https://www.ipvoid.com/ip-blacklist-check/
> https://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist-check
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:02 AM Colin Stanners 
> wrote:
>
>> A long time ago we had an issue where a banking website wouldn't function
>> for a specific customer on dual-NAT, but it functioned when they were put
>> on a public IP. I believe that it was a combination of a too-strict /
>> over-bureaucratic firewall at the bank's end and the NAT affecting path MTU
>> discovery somehow. It was too much work to troubleshoot for one residential
>> customer so I just put them on a public IP.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:46 AM Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have been having issues where customers that are NAT (double NAT) are
>>> unable to connect to the Illinois mytax website. I assume its got to do
>>> with security of the site and the double NAT. Changing to a public IP
>>> resolves it, so its not a huge issue. We see that it appends a _/ to the
>>> end of it so its  https://mytax.illinois.gov/_/ I dont know what that
>>> is about.
>>>
>>> Is there anything else a guy can do aside from going to all publics? We
>>> dont do CG NAT because our ratio isnt all that high and we just got more
>>> ARIN space that we need to clean up and provision
>>> --
>>> 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)

[Mike Hammett]

Hrm, he must have moved. He used to live not far from me. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:21:01 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest) 


That's my guy for Ohio. He lives in Kentucky. 





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



On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 9:13 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Mike's my regional guy. He's probably yours too. 




- 
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: Friday, January 24, 2020 2:52:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest) 


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 < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 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 < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > 
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 < af...@kwisp.com > 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 < af-boun...@af.afmug.com > On Behalf Of Jason McKemie 
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2020 10:51 AM 
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group < af@af.afmug.com > 
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 < 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 < 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" < 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

Re: [AFMUG] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers

[Dan Spitler]

My biggest issues with double NAT wasn't so much the double NAT (though
gamers hate it) but with a rogue customer doing something naughty and
getting their shared IP on some blacklist that is used by any number of
random services. CA DMV being a prime example.
Be sure to check the IP against e.g.
https://www.ipvoid.com/ip-blacklist-check/
https://whatismyipaddress.com/blacklist-check

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:02 AM Colin Stanners  wrote:

> A long time ago we had an issue where a banking website wouldn't function
> for a specific customer on dual-NAT, but it functioned when they were put
> on a public IP. I believe that it was a combination of a too-strict /
> over-bureaucratic firewall at the bank's end and the NAT affecting path MTU
> discovery somehow. It was too much work to troubleshoot for one residential
> customer so I just put them on a public IP.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:46 AM Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
>> We have been having issues where customers that are NAT (double NAT) are
>> unable to connect to the Illinois mytax website. I assume its got to do
>> with security of the site and the double NAT. Changing to a public IP
>> resolves it, so its not a huge issue. We see that it appends a _/ to the
>> end of it so its  https://mytax.illinois.gov/_/ I dont know what that is
>> about.
>>
>> Is there anything else a guy can do aside from going to all publics? We
>> dont do CG NAT because our ratio isnt all that high and we just got more
>> ARIN space that we need to clean up and provision
>> --
>> 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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Ken Hohhof]

And not registering locations.  I guess like having drugs or a dead body in 
your trunk, they wouldn’t have searched the car if your didn’t have a broken 
tail light.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:37 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

 

that was for interfering with an earth station outside our band it turns out

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:13 AM Ken Hohhof mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote:

Well that would be bad since they are apparently still issuing fines for not
having registered locations, based on info posted last week.

-Original Message-
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:00 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 8:43 AM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
> The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.


Yeah I know my NN license doesn't expire this year, but it's been unclear to
me if the FCC expects everyone with NN licenses that don't expire this year
to shut down on April 17 or not.

I ask because I tried to submit a location registration last week and the
application disappeared without a trace: the file number doesn't show up in
ULS or in search but I still have the PDF copy. It makes me wonder if
they're silently discarding any NN related applications at this point due to
impending shutdown.

-- 
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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Steve Jones]

that was for interfering with an earth station outside our band it turns out

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:13 AM Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> Well that would be bad since they are apparently still issuing fines for
> not
> having registered locations, based on info posted last week.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:00 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 8:43 AM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
> > The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of
> them
> (~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.
>
>
> Yeah I know my NN license doesn't expire this year, but it's been unclear
> to
> me if the FCC expects everyone with NN licenses that don't expire this year
> to shut down on April 17 or not.
>
> I ask because I tried to submit a location registration last week and the
> application disappeared without a trace: the file number doesn't show up in
> ULS or in search but I still have the PDF copy. It makes me wonder if
> they're silently discarding any NN related applications at this point due
> to
> impending shutdown.
>
> --
> 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)

[Josh Luthman]

That's my guy for Ohio.  He lives in Kentucky.

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


On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 9:13 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Mike's my regional guy. He's probably yours too.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jason McKemie" 
> *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 24, 2020 2:52:12 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Calix (was RE: Google/Nest WiFi speedtest)
>
> 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" 
>

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Ken Hohhof]

Well that would be bad since they are apparently still issuing fines for not
having registered locations, based on info posted last week.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 11:00 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 8:43 AM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:
> The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.


Yeah I know my NN license doesn't expire this year, but it's been unclear to
me if the FCC expects everyone with NN licenses that don't expire this year
to shut down on April 17 or not.

I ask because I tried to submit a location registration last week and the
application disappeared without a trace: the file number doesn't show up in
ULS or in search but I still have the PDF copy. It makes me wonder if
they're silently discarding any NN related applications at this point due to
impending shutdown.

-- 
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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Ken Hohhof]

+1 on more onsite CBRS classes.  Or do one at Cambium HQ.  Or a webinar.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:46 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

 

Theres Cambium Matts input.

Matt

A. DO MORE ONSITE CBRS!!! That was the most informative CBRS class ever, 
learned more there than from CPI

 

B. Do you have any supporting documentation on the NN expiration thing?

 

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:44 AM Matt Mangriotis via AF mailto:af@af.afmug.com> > wrote:

The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them 
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.

You can check the expiration date of your license in the FCC ULS database, by 
searching here: 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp;JSESSIONID_ULSSEARCH=7TskpvSZrnQQ5yLpHK44dpt82Wh1Ps8z2R1fpnpqpy0s5542ypb1!-1408480664!NONE

(It's easiest to search if you choose "NN - 3650-3700 MHz" from the drop down, 
and/or know your Call Sign).

Matt

-Original Message-
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of David Coudron
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group mailto:af@af.afmug.com> >
Subject: [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Yes, that is our understanding.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com    |  Mobile: 
612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.
i...@advantenon.com    |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, 
Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  |  
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.advantenon.com 

 
&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=kax3YSpIS7Cj447MduERoTeIi0HMh8lGF6bRP6kYrwc%3D&reserved=0
  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> > On Behalf 
Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC 
> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
> registration process.
> 
> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> 


Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com
 

 
&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=DsCuJ3FMkgAV4chE3YCZyWSJqpSWafYrjsLNiOhCCzo%3D&reserved=0
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com  
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com
 

 
&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=DsCuJ3FMkgAV4chE3YCZyWSJqpSWafYrjsLNiOhCCzo%3D&reserved=0
-- 
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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Seth Mattinen]

On 1/27/20 8:43 AM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote:

The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them 
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.



Yeah I know my NN license doesn't expire this year, but it's been 
unclear to me if the FCC expects everyone with NN licenses that don't 
expire this year to shut down on April 17 or not.


I ask because I tried to submit a location registration last week and 
the application disappeared without a trace: the file number doesn't 
show up in ULS or in search but I still have the PDF copy. It makes me 
wonder if they're silently discarding any NN related applications at 
this point due to impending shutdown.


--
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

[David Coudron]

Our NN license expired in January 2020.   So we applied for a renewal.   They 
renewed to April 2020.   When talking to FCC about it, they said that all NN's 
would expire on April 2020 no matter what.   They were a little fuzzy about 
that answer, but eventually worked around to setting on that answer.   I 
suspect that will be it unless you get an approved waiver.

Regards, 

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.    
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:52 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got 
expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little 
unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April regardless 
of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and 
expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But I know at 
least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license doesn't 
expire until 2024.

That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A license 
acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs the 
full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not grant extensions 
if some licenses still have 5 years to run?


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Yes, that is our understanding.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC 
> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
> registration process.
> 
> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> 


Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

--
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

[Ken Hohhof]

Apparently there was a window of time where new or renewed licenses got 
expiration dates out to like 2025.  See for example WQVI696.  I'm a little 
unclear on whether all Part 96 equipment becomes illegal this April regardless 
of whether your NN license expires.  Ours was renewed in October 2018 and 
expires April 2020, so it's moot unless we get an extension.  But I know at 
least one WISP that thinks they have lots of time because their license doesn't 
expire until 2024.

That's another bizarre feature of how the FCC has handled this.  A license 
acquired or renewed in 2018 expires in 2020, but one acquired in 2015 runs the 
full 10 years to 2025?  That's just random.  How can they not grant extensions 
if some licenses still have 5 years to run?


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Yes, that is our understanding.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC 
> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
> registration process.
> 
> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> 


Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

--
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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Steve Jones]

Theres Cambium Matts input.
Matt
A. DO MORE ONSITE CBRS!!! That was the most informative CBRS class ever,
learned more there than from CPI

B. Do you have any supporting documentation on the NN expiration thing?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:44 AM Matt Mangriotis via AF 
wrote:

> The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them
> (~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.
>
> You can check the expiration date of your license in the FCC ULS database,
> by searching here:
> https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp;JSESSIONID_ULSSEARCH=7TskpvSZrnQQ5yLpHK44dpt82Wh1Ps8z2R1fpnpqpy0s5542ypb1!-1408480664!NONE
>
> (It's easiest to search if you choose "NN - 3650-3700 MHz" from the drop
> down, and/or know your Call Sign).
>
> Matt
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
> 55447  |
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.advantenon.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=kax3YSpIS7Cj447MduERoTeIi0HMh8lGF6bRP6kYrwc%3D&reserved=0
>  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> > yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
> > looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
> > the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
> > registration process.
> >
> > You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> >
>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
>
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=DsCuJ3FMkgAV4chE3YCZyWSJqpSWafYrjsLNiOhCCzo%3D&reserved=0
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
>
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=DsCuJ3FMkgAV4chE3YCZyWSJqpSWafYrjsLNiOhCCzo%3D&reserved=0
> --
> 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

[Steve Jones]

Ive been told, and IIRC even from Cambium, the NN is done in April, unless
your NN isnt expired, then you can operate until it expires. I have
Commsearch verifying this right now

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:35 AM David Coudron 
wrote:

> Yes, that is our understanding.
>
> David Coudron
> david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
>
> Advantenon, Inc.
> i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN
> 55447  |  www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local:
> 612-454-1545
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> > yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
> > looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using
> > the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
> > registration process.
> >
> > You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> >
>
>
> Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?
>
> --
> 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] [ External ] Re: FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Matt Mangriotis via AF]

The license expiration date is tied to your specific license. Most of them 
(~85% of the total) do expire on April 17, 2020.

You can check the expiration date of your license in the FCC ULS database, by 
searching here: 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp;JSESSIONID_ULSSEARCH=7TskpvSZrnQQ5yLpHK44dpt82Wh1Ps8z2R1fpnpqpy0s5542ypb1!-1408480664!NONE

(It's easiest to search if you choose "NN - 3650-3700 MHz" from the drop down, 
and/or know your Call Sign).

Matt

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of David Coudron
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:35 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

Yes, that is our understanding.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.advantenon.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=kax3YSpIS7Cj447MduERoTeIi0HMh8lGF6bRP6kYrwc%3D&reserved=0
  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.    The FCC 
> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
> registration process.
> 
> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> 


Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=DsCuJ3FMkgAV4chE3YCZyWSJqpSWafYrjsLNiOhCCzo%3D&reserved=0
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cee03de1dd94541dd68ea08d7a346f75e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637157397516937391&sdata=DsCuJ3FMkgAV4chE3YCZyWSJqpSWafYrjsLNiOhCCzo%3D&reserved=0
-- 
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

[David Coudron]

Yes, that is our understanding.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 612-991-7474
 
Advantenon, Inc.    
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  | 
 www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  Local: 612-454-1545 



-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 10:33 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

On 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.    The FCC 
> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using 
> the band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
> registration process.
> 
> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
> 


Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

--
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 1/27/20 7:20 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.    The FCC 
looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using the 
band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire 
registration process.


You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.




Is the NN shutdown date still April 17, 2020?

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

Re: [AFMUG] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers

[Colin Stanners]

A long time ago we had an issue where a banking website wouldn't function
for a specific customer on dual-NAT, but it functioned when they were put
on a public IP. I believe that it was a combination of a too-strict /
over-bureaucratic firewall at the bank's end and the NAT affecting path MTU
discovery somehow. It was too much work to troubleshoot for one residential
customer so I just put them on a public IP.


On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:46 AM Steve Jones 
wrote:

> We have been having issues where customers that are NAT (double NAT) are
> unable to connect to the Illinois mytax website. I assume its got to do
> with security of the site and the double NAT. Changing to a public IP
> resolves it, so its not a huge issue. We see that it appends a _/ to the
> end of it so its  https://mytax.illinois.gov/_/ I dont know what that is
> about.
>
> Is there anything else a guy can do aside from going to all publics? We
> dont do CG NAT because our ratio isnt all that high and we just got more
> ARIN space that we need to clean up and provision
> --
> 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] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers

[Mark - Myakka Technologies]

Title: Re: [AFMUG] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers


Steve,

FWIW - My home system is double nat.  I was able to pull up that web site with no issue. 

--
Best regards,
 Mark                            mailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.Myakka.com

--

Monday, January 27, 2020, 10:45:12 AM, you wrote:





We have been having issues where customers that are NAT (double NAT) are unable to connect to the Illinois mytax website. I assume its got to do with security of the site and the double NAT. Changing to a public IP resolves it, so its not a huge issue. We see that it appends a _/ to the end of it so its  https://mytax.illinois.gov/_/ I dont know what that is about.

Is there anything else a guy can do aside from going to all publics? We dont do CG NAT because our ratio isnt all that high and we just got more ARIN space that we need to clean up and provision





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

[AFMUG] mytax illinois inaccessible to NAT customers

[Steve Jones]

We have been having issues where customers that are NAT (double NAT) are
unable to connect to the Illinois mytax website. I assume its got to do
with security of the site and the double NAT. Changing to a public IP
resolves it, so its not a huge issue. We see that it appends a _/ to the
end of it so its  https://mytax.illinois.gov/_/ I dont know what that is
about.

Is there anything else a guy can do aside from going to all publics? We
dont do CG NAT because our ratio isnt all that high and we just got more
ARIN space that we need to clean up and provision
-- 
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

[Steve Jones]

It is going to be similar with SAS, as in there will be times that its a
day or 2 until your CPE can broadcast. Im not a fan of the inter SAS
communications only happening overnight, I hope that becomes real time. Its
going to be a tough sell telling a customer you need to wait for a grant
before their service turns on "take my word for it, it will start working
tomorrow" Sounds alot like "I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamberder
today"
Cambium has a slick way of doing it with less accurate info, but you still
have the new grant request post installation to deal with. We are currently
thinking that the accurate grant requests will be put in at 2330, and just
let customers know the first night there will be a drop in service.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:21 AM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC
> looked at the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using the
> band without ever considering how badly they fubared the entire
> registration process.
>
> You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.
>
> Mark
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
> That whole process was such a joke.  You were supposed to register the AP
> locations and then each subscriber location BEFORE you installed them and
> wait several weeks for the FCC to mail you the notice of registration.  As
> if any customer would order service and then wait for the FCC to let you
> install.  But a side effect was that you could just register a whole bunch
> of prospective locations, with no requirement they actually be installed.
> And many of us failed to understand that the grandfathered protection areas
> would be based on registered subscriber locations, not AP sector coverage.
> So given the timeframe, many of us were deploying a bunch of APs but didn’t
> have many subscribers yet, and those were maybe close to the AP.  With the
> advantage of hindsight, the thing to do was to register several locations
> at the far reach of every AP to define your protection area.  A few WISPs
> seemed to realize this, judging from the flood of applications the FCC
> received days before the deadline, resulting in a several month backlog.
>
> And of course the application process was a formality, the only reason
> they would be denied was somebody typed something wrong.  Of some catch
> 22.  Like we had a Purewave basestation in an optional mode where it used 3
> x 120 degree sectors essentially as an omni.  But the FCC would kick back
> the location registration if we put 360 degrees as the antenna coverage.
> We ultimately had to register it as 120 degrees.  Yet this was not like
> Part 101 where they are actually approving your path, frequencies, EIRP,
> etc.  It was more like a CAPTCHA to prove you could type accurately.
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of *dave via AF
> *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2020 8:47 AM
> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
> *Cc:* dave 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>
> I guess it would make sense for those who are wanting to have something
> inside the metro areas or places with dense population otherwise yes this
> is a great opportunity for those who are in the rural areas.
> I have both so I am wanting at least 1 pal to secure our future here.
> I dont have too much anticipation that the telcos will light up much here
> but we want to be prepared.
> We also missed the deadline on locking in our existing APs at the time of
> april 2015 so its somewhat crucial we have something to lean on.
>
>
> 
> On 1/26/20 7:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> 10 years of idle time without getting a return on your investment, while
> the GAA user use the spectrum for free.   Not a winning investment, though
> there is a lot of stupid money out there.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2020, at 9:30 PM, Steve Jones 
> wrote:
>
> So 10 years of idle time means you cannot renew. It's definitely an
> investors game
>
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:02 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:
>
> In the interest of getting the ACTUAL rules into this discussion instead
> of just speculation, this is what the FCC rules are on term and renewal
> requirements:
>
>
> (3)  *License term:*  Each PAL has a ten-year license term.  Licensees
> must file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of
> Section 1.949.
>
> (4)  *Performance requirement:*  Priority Access Licensees must provide
> substantial service in their license area by the end of the initial license
> term.  “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound,
> favorable, and substantially above the level of mediocre service which
> might minimally warrant renewal.  Failure by any licensee to meet this
> requirement will result in forfeiture of the license without further
> Commission action, and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.  
> Licensees
> shall demonstrate compliance with the performance requirement by filing a
> construction notification with the Commissi

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Mark Radabaugh]

yep, and a self fulfilling failure on the part of the FCC.The FCC looked at 
the registered CPE and decided that WISP’s were not using the band without ever 
considering how badly they fubared the entire registration process.

You WISP’s don’t need an extension, you didn’t use the band.   Uh, yeah.

Mark

> On Jan 27, 2020, at 10:16 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> That whole process was such a joke.  You were supposed to register the AP 
> locations and then each subscriber location BEFORE you installed them and 
> wait several weeks for the FCC to mail you the notice of registration.  As if 
> any customer would order service and then wait for the FCC to let you 
> install.  But a side effect was that you could just register a whole bunch of 
> prospective locations, with no requirement they actually be installed.  And 
> many of us failed to understand that the grandfathered protection areas would 
> be based on registered subscriber locations, not AP sector coverage.  So 
> given the timeframe, many of us were deploying a bunch of APs but didn’t have 
> many subscribers yet, and those were maybe close to the AP.  With the 
> advantage of hindsight, the thing to do was to register several locations at 
> the far reach of every AP to define your protection area.  A few WISPs seemed 
> to realize this, judging from the flood of applications the FCC received days 
> before the deadline, resulting in a several month backlog.
>  
> And of course the application process was a formality, the only reason they 
> would be denied was somebody typed something wrong.  Of some catch 22.  Like 
> we had a Purewave basestation in an optional mode where it used 3 x 120 
> degree sectors essentially as an omni.  But the FCC would kick back the 
> location registration if we put 360 degrees as the antenna coverage.  We 
> ultimately had to register it as 120 degrees.  Yet this was not like Part 101 
> where they are actually approving your path, frequencies, EIRP, etc.  It was 
> more like a CAPTCHA to prove you could type accurately.
>  
>  
> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com>> On Behalf 
> Of dave via AF
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 8:47 AM
> To: af@af.afmug.com 
> Cc: dave mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com>>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105
>  
> I guess it would make sense for those who are wanting to have something 
> inside the metro areas or places with dense population otherwise yes this is 
> a great opportunity for those who are in the rural areas. 
> I have both so I am wanting at least 1 pal to secure our future here. 
> I dont have too much anticipation that the telcos will light up much here but 
> we want to be prepared.
> We also missed the deadline on locking in our existing APs at the time of 
> april 2015 so its somewhat crucial we have something to lean on.
>  
> 
> 
> On 1/26/20 7:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> 10 years of idle time without getting a return on your investment, while the 
>> GAA user use the spectrum for free.   Not a winning investment, though there 
>> is a lot of stupid money out there. 
>>  
>> Mark
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 25, 2020, at 9:30 PM, Steve Jones >> > wrote:
>>>  
>>> So 10 years of idle time means you cannot renew. It's definitely an 
>>> investors game
>>>  
>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:02 PM Mark Radabaugh >> > wrote:
 In the interest of getting the ACTUAL rules into this discussion instead 
 of just speculation, this is what the FCC rules are on term and renewal 
 requirements: 
  
 (3)  License term:  Each PAL has a ten-year license term.  Licensees must 
 file a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of Section 
 1.949.
 
 (4)  Performance requirement:  Priority Access Licensees must provide 
 substantial service in their license area by the end of the initial 
 license term.  “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound, 
 favorable, and substantially above the level of mediocre service which 
 might minimally warrant renewal.  Failure by any licensee to meet this 
 requirement will result in forfeiture of the license without further 
 Commission action, and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.   
 <>Licensees shall demonstrate compliance with the performance requirement 
 by filing a construction notification with the Commission in accordance 
 with the provisions set forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter.  The licensee 
 must certify whether it has met the performance requirement, and file 
 supporting documentation, including description and demonstration of the 
 bona fide service provided, electronic maps accurately depicting the 
 boundaries of the license area and where in the license area the licensee 
 provides service that meets the performance requirement, supporting 
 technical documentation, any population-related assum

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[Ken Hohhof]

That whole process was such a joke.  You were supposed to register the AP 
locations and then each subscriber location BEFORE you installed them and wait 
several weeks for the FCC to mail you the notice of registration.  As if any 
customer would order service and then wait for the FCC to let you install.  But 
a side effect was that you could just register a whole bunch of prospective 
locations, with no requirement they actually be installed.  And many of us 
failed to understand that the grandfathered protection areas would be based on 
registered subscriber locations, not AP sector coverage.  So given the 
timeframe, many of us were deploying a bunch of APs but didn’t have many 
subscribers yet, and those were maybe close to the AP.  With the advantage of 
hindsight, the thing to do was to register several locations at the far reach 
of every AP to define your protection area.  A few WISPs seemed to realize 
this, judging from the flood of applications the FCC received days before the 
deadline, resulting in a several month backlog.

 

And of course the application process was a formality, the only reason they 
would be denied was somebody typed something wrong.  Of some catch 22.  Like we 
had a Purewave basestation in an optional mode where it used 3 x 120 degree 
sectors essentially as an omni.  But the FCC would kick back the location 
registration if we put 360 degrees as the antenna coverage.  We ultimately had 
to register it as 120 degrees.  Yet this was not like Part 101 where they are 
actually approving your path, frequencies, EIRP, etc.  It was more like a 
CAPTCHA to prove you could type accurately.

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of dave via AF
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020 8:47 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com
Cc: dave 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

 

I guess it would make sense for those who are wanting to have something inside 
the metro areas or places with dense population otherwise yes this is a great 
opportunity for those who are in the rural areas. 
I have both so I am wanting at least 1 pal to secure our future here. 
I dont have too much anticipation that the telcos will light up much here but 
we want to be prepared.
We also missed the deadline on locking in our existing APs at the time of april 
2015 so its somewhat crucial we have something to lean on.
 




On 1/26/20 7:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:

10 years of idle time without getting a return on your investment, while the 
GAA user use the spectrum for free.   Not a winning investment, though there is 
a lot of stupid money out there. 

 

Mark





On Jan 25, 2020, at 9:30 PM, Steve Jones mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

So 10 years of idle time means you cannot renew. It's definitely an investors 
game

 

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:02 PM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

In the interest of getting the ACTUAL rules into this discussion instead of 
just speculation, this is what the FCC rules are on term and renewal 
requirements: 

 

(3)  License term:  Each PAL has a ten-year license term.  Licensees must file 
a renewal application in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.949.

(4)  Performance requirement:  Priority Access Licensees must provide 
substantial service in their license area by the end of the initial license 
term.  “Substantial” service is defined as service which is sound, favorable, 
and substantially above the level of mediocre service which might minimally 
warrant renewal.  Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result 
in forfeiture of the license without further Commission action, and the 
licensee will be ineligible to regain it.  Licensees shall demonstrate 
compliance with the performance requirement by filing a construction 
notification with the Commission in accordance with the provisions set forth in 
§ 1.946(d) of this chapter.  The licensee must certify whether it has met the 
performance requirement, and file supporting documentation, including 
description and demonstration of the bona fide service provided, electronic 
maps accurately depicting the boundaries of the license area and where in the 
license area the licensee provides service that meets the performance 
requirement, supporting technical documentation, any population-related 
assumptions or data used in determining the population covered by a service to 
the extent any were relied upon, and any other information the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau may prescribe by public notice.  A licensee’s showing 
of substantial service may not rely on service coverage outside of the PAL 
Protection Areas of registered CBSDs or on deployments that are not reflected 
in SAS records of CBSD registrations.  

(i)  Safe harbor for mobile or point-to-multipoint service.  A Priority Access 
Licensee providing a mobile service or point-to-multipoint service may 
demonstrate substantial service by showing that it provides signal coverage and 
offers service, either to customer

Re: [AFMUG] FCC 3.5 GHz Spectrum Auction 105

[dave via AF]

I guess it would make sense for those who are wanting to have something 
inside the metro areas or places with dense population otherwise yes 
this is a great opportunity for those who are in the rural areas.

I have both so I am wanting at least 1 pal to secure our future here.
I dont have too much anticipation that the telcos will light up much 
here but we want to be prepared.
We also missed the deadline on locking in our existing APs at the time 
of april 2015 so its somewhat crucial we have something to lean on.



On 1/26/20 7:29 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
10 years of idle time without getting a return on your investment, 
while the GAA user use the spectrum for free.   Not a winning 
investment, though there is a lot of stupid money out there.


Mark

On Jan 25, 2020, at 9:30 PM, Steve Jones > wrote:


So 10 years of idle time means you cannot renew. It's definitely an 
investors game


On Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 12:02 PM Mark Radabaugh > wrote:


In the interest of getting the ACTUAL rules into this discussion
instead of just speculation, this is what the FCC rules are on
term and renewal requirements:

(3) /License term:/  Each PAL has a ten-year license term. 
Licensees must file a renewal application in accordance with the
provisions of Section 1.949.

(4) /Performance requirement:/  Priority Access Licensees must
provide substantial service in their license area by the end of
the initial license term.  “Substantial” service is defined as
service which is sound, favorable, and substantially above the
level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant renewal. 
Failure by any licensee to meet this requirement will result in
forfeiture of the license without further Commission action, and
the licensee will be ineligible to regain it. Licensees shall
demonstrate compliance with the performance requirement by filing
a construction notification with the Commission in accordance
with the provisions set forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter.  The
licensee must certify whether it has met the performance
requirement, and file supporting documentation, including
description and demonstration of the bona fide service provided,
electronic maps accurately depicting the boundaries of the
license area and where in the license area the licensee provides
service that meets the performance requirement, supporting
technical documentation, any population-related assumptions or
data used in determining the population covered by a service to
the extent any were relied upon, and any other information the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may prescribe by public
notice.  A licensee’s showing of substantial service may not rely
on service coverage outside of the PAL Protection Areas of
registered CBSDs or on deployments that are not reflected in SAS
records of CBSD registrations.

(i) /Safe harbor for mobile or point-to-multipoint service./  A
Priority Access Licensee providing a mobile service or
point-to-multipoint service may demonstrate substantial service
by showing that it provides signal coverage and offers service,
either to customers or for internal use, over at least 50 percent
of the population in the license area.

(ii) /Safe harbor for fixed point-to-point service/. A Priority
Access Licensee providing a fixed point-to-point service may
demonstrate substantial service by showing that it has
constructed and operates at least four links, either to customers
or for internal use, in license areas with 134,000 population or
less and in license areas with greater population, a minimum
number of links equal to the population of the license area
divided by 33,500 and rounded up to the nearest whole number.  To
satisfy this provision, such links must operate using registered
Category B CBSDs.



Mark Radabaugh
WISPA Policy Committee Chair
419-261-5996

Mark



On Jan 24, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Seth Mattinen mailto:se...@rollernet.us>> wrote:

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


-- 
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: