Re: [AFMUG] WISPA Board Elections

[Ken Hohhof]

Yeah, I think I saw something about that.  Supreme Court?  Diana Ross and The 
Supremes?  Oh now I remember, is this you?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme#/media/File:Vermin_Supreme_August_2019.jpg

 

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 10:32 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WISPA Board Elections

 

Am I on the ballot for supreme leader?

 

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 1:13 PM Mark Radabaugh mailto:m...@amplex.net> > wrote:

Wispa Board elections are currently ongoing.If your organization is a 
member and has not voted please do so now.

 

Ballots for the WISPA 2020 Board of Director Candidates were emailed out to 
each eligible company key contact on Thursday October 8th around 12 PM ET.  If 
the key contact did not see it, please have them check their spam/junk folder, 
or any other alternative inbox folders that they may have, to locate the email. 
 For further assistance 
visithttps://www.wispa.org/board_of_directors_candidates.php.

 

So far I think we have less than 10% participation.   Please vote if you have 
not.   Or if you are not a member please consider joining.

 

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] [ External ] Re: 3GHz CBRS PALs

[Steve Jones]

This is supposed to be one of the feature opportunities for SAS
administrators to differentiate themselves. Way back when, this was a
feature I asked about but nobody knew what feature sets the sas
administrators would have, much like today. This is a weird market right
now where the products arent really advertising much differentiation in
feature sets. SAS administrators being the product, not the hardware

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 4:08 PM Matt Mangriotis via AF 
wrote:

> With most GWPZ’s expiring **THIS SATURDAY** there should be more GAA
> (General Authorized Access) spectrum available starting very soon for a lot
> of folks.
>
>
>
> In theory, if you are not in a DPA, then there should continue to be at
> least 80 MHz starting next week as compared to only 50 MHz under Part 90
> rules (and 150 MHz until the PALs are actually implemented).
>
>
>
> To see what happened in your specific county, you can refer to the FCC
> Auction information here:
> https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/auction105/reports/results
>
>
>
> Click on the “Search” button at the top and search your county.
>
>
>
> And see who won the PALs in your area. The 7 PALs in the counties in which
> you operate will be issued among the lower 100 MHz (3550-3650), leaving at
> least 30 MHz within that 100 MHz in addition to the upper 50 MHz (3650-3700
> MHz) free for GAA use.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* AF  *On Behalf Of * Eric Nielsen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 14, 2020 3:46 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> *Subject:* [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] 3GHz CBRS PALs
>
>
>
> SAS administrators offer encumbrance and incumbent analyses that should
> offer the info you're looking for. Something to consider is that PALs
> aren't the only incumbent you should be factoring into your CBRS plans.
> There are also FSS operators, GWPZs in the upper 50MHz and if you fall in
> an inland DPA you could be on the movelist.
>
> Again, all of this would be answered in the aforementioned analyses
> offered by SAS providers - Amdocs, CommScope, Federated Wireless, Google,
> etc.
>
> I work for CommScope - feel free to give me a shout if you have questions.
>
> -Eric
> 571-508-7409
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jeremy Grip  wrote:
>
> Is there any way to find out how many PALs there are at a given location,
> without actually putting a radio in the air (and does the radio interface
> actually tell you that)?
>
> Hard to know if it makes sense to jump in without a PAL or two.
>
>
> --
> 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] WISPA Board Elections

[Steve Jones]

Am I on the ballot for supreme leader?

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 1:13 PM Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> Wispa Board elections are currently ongoing.If your organization is a
> member and has not voted please do so now.
>
> Ballots for the WISPA 2020 Board of Director Candidates were emailed out
> to each eligible company key contact on Thursday October 8th around 12 PM
> ET.  If the key contact did not see it, please have them check their
> spam/junk folder, or any other alternative inbox folders that they may
> have, to locate the email.  For further assistance visit
> https://www.wispa.org/board_of_directors_candidates.php.
>
> So far I think we have less than 10% participation.   Please vote if you
> have not.   Or if you are not a member please consider joining.
>
> 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] Setting up 4 45 ft. towers with antennas

[Bill Prince]

  
  
Hey. I could use some new tires for my pickup. Do you deliver?


bp

On 10/14/2020 6:39 PM, Jaime Solorza
  wrote:


  
  We have built 4 45ft. towers for internet and
cameras on several large Pecan farms.  As a matter of fact, a
drug dealer got his truck stuck on levee, stole a tractor from
one farm.  The sheriff caught him about 20 miles away...the
video was clear as hell..
  
  

  


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

Re: [AFMUG] Setting up 4 45 ft. towers with antennas

[Ken Hohhof]

I love your method of taking a selfie while on a tower – take a photo of your 
shadow.

 

From: AF  On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:39 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [AFMUG] Setting up 4 45 ft. towers with antennas

 

We have built 4 45ft. towers for internet and cameras on several large Pecan 
farms.  As a matter of fact, a drug dealer got his truck stuck on levee, stole 
a tractor from one farm.  The sheriff caught him about 20 miles away...the 
video was clear as hell..

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

Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: 3GHz CBRS PALs

[Matt Mangriotis via AF]

With most GWPZ’s expiring *THIS SATURDAY* there should be more GAA (General 
Authorized Access) spectrum available starting very soon for a lot of folks.

In theory, if you are not in a DPA, then there should continue to be at least 
80 MHz starting next week as compared to only 50 MHz under Part 90 rules (and 
150 MHz until the PALs are actually implemented).

To see what happened in your specific county, you can refer to the FCC Auction 
information here: 
https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/auction105/reports/results

Click on the “Search” button at the top and search your county.

And see who won the PALs in your area. The 7 PALs in the counties in which you 
operate will be issued among the lower 100 MHz (3550-3650), leaving at least 30 
MHz within that 100 MHz in addition to the upper 50 MHz (3650-3700 MHz) free 
for GAA use.

Matt


From: AF  On Behalf Of Eric Nielsen
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 3:46 PM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] 3GHz CBRS PALs

SAS administrators offer encumbrance and incumbent analyses that should offer 
the info you're looking for. Something to consider is that PALs aren't the only 
incumbent you should be factoring into your CBRS plans. There are also FSS 
operators, GWPZs in the upper 50MHz and if you fall in an inland DPA you could 
be on the movelist.

Again, all of this would be answered in the aforementioned analyses offered by 
SAS providers - Amdocs, CommScope, Federated Wireless, Google, etc.

I work for CommScope - feel free to give me a shout if you have questions.

-Eric
571-508-7409

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jeremy Grip 
mailto:g...@nbnworks.net>> wrote:
Is there any way to find out how many PALs there are at a given location, 
without actually putting a radio in the air (and does the radio interface 
actually tell you that)?

Hard to know if it makes sense to jump in without a PAL or two.


--
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] 3GHz CBRS PALs

[Eric Nielsen]

SAS administrators offer encumbrance and incumbent analyses that should
offer the info you're looking for. Something to consider is that PALs
aren't the only incumbent you should be factoring into your CBRS plans.
There are also FSS operators, GWPZs in the upper 50MHz and if you fall in
an inland DPA you could be on the movelist.

Again, all of this would be answered in the aforementioned analyses offered
by SAS providers - Amdocs, CommScope, Federated Wireless, Google, etc.

I work for CommScope - feel free to give me a shout if you have questions.

-Eric
571-508-7409

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:01 PM Jeremy Grip  wrote:

> Is there any way to find out how many PALs there are at a given location,
> without actually putting a radio in the air (and does the radio interface
> actually tell you that)?
>
> Hard to know if it makes sense to jump in without a PAL or two.
>
>
> --
> 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] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Bill Prince]

or it's OK to shoot 10,000 long guns in random directions.

bp


On 10/14/2020 10:57 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if 
it's not 100% of the time.  Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as 
sometimes I point it at other people.  I feel like the FCC doesn't understand 
that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work 
reliably not intermittently.

I get the same feeling about other decisions.  Like their love of shared 
spectrum.  Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other 
users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's 
equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same 
power over a much wider piece of spectrum.  Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you 
with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting 
at other people, so you're only dead part of the time.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP 
rules.

Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.

Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf

Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this.  It is 
apparently for 2.4 GHz only.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll add 
Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are antenna 
arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable.  
The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you 
don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital 
beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in 
an indoor wifi environment.

I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas 
that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of 
variation.

One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was 
that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type 
of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.

I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
challenging to support with an analog beamformer.


On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  wrote:

 A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
“smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that 
I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course 
better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple 
of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even 
better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector 
that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?

 I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a 
dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see 
how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can 
enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz.

 With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region 

Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

[chuck]

You can get decent used machines, but watch out for the tracking equipment.  It 
almost never comes with the machine.  We have standardized on underground 
magnetics.  They are about $12K for a setup.  You can go with older 
digitrackers but I would never advise that.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:56 AM
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

We're probably going to buy our own boring machine anyway.  We'll cut ourselves 
a good deal on the second bore.



On 10/14/2020 12:53 PM, Steven Kenney wrote:

  Great point if he's stuck not owning it.  If they are doing underground with 
a boring machine it may take 2x the time to put the extra conduit in.  But 
usually the companies doing the work will cut you a break in cost.  Could even 
split the costs of the installation so you have some fiber in ground in tandem. 
  

 
  STEVEN KENNEY 

DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY 
A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 

E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283

W: www.wavedirect.net
   



--

  From: "chuck" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
  To: "af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:15:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models


  If I was building it, I would try to convince them to let me add a duct to 
two everywhere that I would own.  

  From: Adam Moffett 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:00 PM
  To: af@af.afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

  Sadly we're literally not allowed to own it.  It's a USDA "ReConnect" grant.  
The grant awardee is the muni.  USDA will have a hand on the wheel and their 
contract will literally not allow anyone but the awardee to own the network.

  We could potentially buy the network afterwards with USDA approval, but I'm 
told it's an uphill battle to get approved.  


  It might be possible to structure the agreement so the muni owns it on paper 
and we have full control in reality.  But whatever agreement we make has to be 
approved by the USDA.  I might have to get them on the horn and see what they'd 
prefer.





  On 10/13/2020 3:05 PM, Steven Kenney wrote:

It'll start out like most marriages.  That should be all you need to know.  
I'd keep an eye on the divorce rates :)  In my case I have the perfect wife.. 
but dealing with municipalities and government you can expect your wife to be a 
"Karen".  

I'd ensure you own the fiber and have access to work on the fiber.  But 
guarantee them X amount of bandwidth over X period of time, you'll provide the 
labor and monitoring for all their connections.  Get it in front of a lawyer.  
If shit goes downhill you both will be covered.  Just make sure any future 
projects with them won't get squashed.  

   
STEVEN KENNEY 

  DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY 
  A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 

  E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283

  W: www.wavedirect.net
 





From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
To: "af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:36:13 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models


Anybody have direct experience with public-private partnerships as far 
as what works and what doesn't?

I'm discussing with a county gov that has funding to build a network, 
and they're open to almost anything.  The nature of their funding 
requires that they own the network.  The nature of their knowledge level 
is that they have no idea how to be the network owner.  So essentially 
it has to be a public-private partnership of some type.

My first thought was we could lease fiber miles from them and own the 
electronics.  They keep the lease payments in a fund which they use to 
pay for repairs.  We could do repairs and send them bills based on an 
agreed upon fee schedule.

Naturally I'd prefer exclusive access and I'm sure they'd prefer open 
access.  I think my biggest argument in favor of exclusive access is 
when you have a problem there's only one throat to choke.


-- 
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

[AFMUG] WISPA Board Elections

[Mark Radabaugh]

Wispa Board elections are currently ongoing.If your organization is a 
member and has not voted please do so now.

Ballots for the WISPA 2020 Board of Director Candidates were emailed out to 
each eligible company key contact on Thursday October 8th around 12 PM ET.  If 
the key contact did not see it, please have them check their spam/junk folder, 
or any other alternative inbox folders that they may have, to locate the email. 
 For further assistance 
visithttps://www.wispa.org/board_of_directors_candidates.php 
.

So far I think we have less than 10% participation.   Please vote if you have 
not.   Or if you are not a member please consider joining.

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

Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Adam Moffett]

I think SkyPilot argued that the CPE was a point to point and used the 
higher Tx power only in the upload direction. I think that held up to 
scrutiny, but not sure how helpful that was.  It probably didn't hurt.



On 10/14/2020 1:55 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:



On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster > wrote:


I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran 
under PTP rules.



Yes and no….   this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC 
to allow higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3:


https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf 



"RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow 
devices that emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the 
U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands to operate at power limits that are allowed 
for point-to-point systems in those bands."


 WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported 
this proposal but it has not see action from the FCC.


Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a 
discussion of the current rules.



Mark




Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com 


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.

Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf

Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed 
this.  It is apparently for 2.4 GHz only.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 
2 major kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you 
mention (and I'll add Go Networks to the list) were using analog 
beamforming.  These are antenna arrays that can be phased together to 
make a stronger beam and is steerable.  The chip-based beamforming in 
the WiFi standard is a bit different and you don't get this sort of 
powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital beamforming is more 
useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in an indoor 
wifi environment.


I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the 
impression it is more of an array of fixed sectors that have 
physically different coverage areas that are connected to different 
radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of variation.


One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better 
coverage was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP 
from this specific type of system.  So it had physically more power 
and punch to it.


I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly 
more difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs 
that came after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example 
which would be challenging to support with an analog beamformer.



On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip" 
 wrote:


   A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 
spectrum with “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 
900 PtMP with some old Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt 
clients in 2.4. I was surprised that I got just about the same 
coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course better 
throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a 
couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) 
that did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a 
beamforming 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?


   I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower 
plus a couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in 
the middle of a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and 
hardwood. I just don’t see how 2.4 could match the old 900 
penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can enlighten me. It 
wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the clients--more than 
a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 2.4 and 
that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz.


   With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH 

Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Ken Hohhof]

This rule seems based on the idea that radio interference doesn't matter if 
it's not 100% of the time.  Like I can shoot you with a rifle as long as 
sometimes I point it at other people.  I feel like the FCC doesn't understand 
that broadband isn't a hobby or best effort service, people expect it to work 
reliably not intermittently.

I get the same feeling about other decisions.  Like their love of shared 
spectrum.  Or allowing FHSS to hop all over the band randomly clobbering other 
users but using high power spectral density, on the assumption that it's 
equivalent to the lower psd that you would calculate by spreading the same 
power over a much wider piece of spectrum.  Again, I'm allowed to shoot at you 
with a long gun, and you shouldn't mind because most of the time I'm shooting 
at other people, so you're only dead part of the time.


-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:38 PM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP 
rules.

Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.

Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf

Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this.  It is 
apparently for 2.4 GHz only.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll add 
Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are antenna 
arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable.  
The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you 
don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital 
beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in 
an indoor wifi environment.

I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas 
that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of 
variation.

One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was 
that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type 
of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.

I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
challenging to support with an analog beamformer.


On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  wrote:

A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
“smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that 
I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course 
better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple 
of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even 
better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector 
that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?

I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a 
dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see 
how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can 
enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. 

With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks 
like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious 
wireless investment 

Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Mark Radabaugh]

> On Oct 14, 2020, at 1:38 PM, Brian Webster  wrote:
> 
> I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under 
> PTP rules.


Yes and no….   this is an active petition from Radwin before the FCC to allow 
higher power using beamforming antennas in U-NII-1 and U-NII-3:

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10618241749047/Radwin%20Petition%20for%20Rulemaking.pdf
 


"RADWIN seeks modification of Section 15.407 of the rules to allow devices that 
emit multiple directional beams sequentially in the U-NII-1 and U-NII-3 bands 
to operate at power limits that are allowed for point-to-point systems in those 
bands."
 WISPA, the WISPA Policy Committee, as well as Cambium have supported this 
proposal but it has not see action from the FCC.

Details of the fine points are in above reference PDF including a discussion of 
the current rules.


Mark


> 
> Thank you,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
> 
> Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.
> 
> Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
> To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
> 
> The infamous "Vivato Rule".
> http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf
> 
> Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this.  It is 
> apparently for 2.4 GHz only.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?
> 
> There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
> kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll 
> add Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are 
> antenna arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is 
> steerable.  The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit 
> different and you don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind 
> of digital beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would 
> be useful in an indoor wifi environment.
> 
> I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
> more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage 
> areas that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another 
> sort of variation.
> 
> One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage 
> was that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this 
> specific type of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.
> 
> I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
> beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
> difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
> after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
> challenging to support with an analog beamformer.
> 
> 
> On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  on behalf of g...@nbnworks.net> wrote:
> 
>A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
> “smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
> Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised 
> that I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of 
> course better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a 
> couple of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that 
> did even better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 
> 2.4 sector that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?
> 
>I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
> couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of 
> a dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t 
> see how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody 
> can enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
> clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
> 2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
> as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. 
> 
>With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks 
> like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious 
> wireless investment here doesn't 

Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

[Adam Moffett]

We're probably going to buy our own boring machine anyway.  We'll cut 
ourselves a good deal on the second bore.



On 10/14/2020 12:53 PM, Steven Kenney wrote:
Great point if he's stuck not owning it.  If they are doing 
underground with a boring machine it may take 2x the time to put the 
extra conduit in.  But usually the companies doing the work will cut 
you a break in cost.  Could even split the costs of the installation 
so you have some fiber in ground in tandem.


logo 
 
 
 
 


*STEVEN KENNEY *
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | 
Leamington ON

E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283
W: www.wavedirect.net



*From: *"chuck" 
*To: *"af" 
*Sent: *Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:15:46 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

If I was building it, I would try to convince them to let me add a 
duct to two everywhere that I would own.

*From:* Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:00 PM
*To:* af@af.afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

Sadly we're literally not allowed to own it.  It's a USDA "ReConnect" 
grant.  The grant awardee is the muni.  USDA will have a hand on the 
wheel and their contract will literally not allow anyone but the 
awardee to own the network.


We could potentially buy the network afterwards with USDA approval, 
but I'm told it's an uphill battle to get approved.


It might be possible to structure the agreement so the muni owns it on 
paper and we have full control in reality.  But whatever agreement we 
make has to be approved by the USDA.  I might have to get them on the 
horn and see what they'd prefer.


On 10/13/2020 3:05 PM, Steven Kenney wrote:

It'll start out like most marriages.  That should be all you need
to know.  I'd keep an eye on the divorce rates :)  In my case I
have the perfect wife.. but dealing with municipalities and
government you can expect your wife to be a "Karen".
I'd ensure you own the fiber and have access to work on the
fiber.  But guarantee them X amount of bandwidth over X period of
time, you'll provide the labor and monitoring for all their
connections.  Get it in front of a lawyer.  If shit goes downhill
you both will be covered.  Just make sure any future projects with
them won't get squashed.
logo 





*STEVEN KENNEY *
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N |
Leamington ON
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283
W: www.wavedirect.net 


*From: *"Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
*To: *"af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:36:13 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] public-private fiber models
Anybody have direct experience with public-private partnerships as
far
as what works and what doesn't?

I'm discussing with a county gov that has funding to build a network,
and they're open to almost anything.  The nature of their funding
requires that they own the network.  The nature of their knowledge
level
is that they have no idea how to be the network owner.  So
essentially
it has to be a public-private partnership of some type.

My first thought was we could lease fiber miles from them and own the
electronics.  They keep the lease payments in a fund which they
use to
pay for repairs.  We could do repairs and send them bills based on an
agreed upon fee schedule.

Naturally I'd prefer exclusive access and I'm sure they'd prefer open
access.  I think my biggest argument in favor of exclusive access is
when you have a problem there's only one throat to choke.


-- 
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] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Brian Webster]

I think it made it to 5 GHz too because SkyPilot had radios that ran under PTP 
rules.

Thank you,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com


-Original Message-
From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Grip
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:33 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group'
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.

Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf

Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this.  It is 
apparently for 2.4 GHz only.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll add 
Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are antenna 
arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable.  
The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you 
don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital 
beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in 
an indoor wifi environment.

I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas 
that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of 
variation.

One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was 
that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type 
of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.

I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
challenging to support with an analog beamformer.


On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  wrote:

A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
“smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that 
I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course 
better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple 
of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even 
better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector 
that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?

I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a 
dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see 
how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can 
enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. 

With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks 
like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious 
wireless investment here doesn't make any sense.
















-- 
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.comdata=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3Dreserved=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


-- 
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] 3GHz CBRS PALs

[Eric Muehleisen]

Can't use your PAL's just yet, but you can see who owns them and in what
county here
https://auctiondata.fcc.gov/public/projects/auction105/reports/results
There is plenty of GAA spectrum available now. You could even turn up an AP
in GAA under the PAL range...at least until an authorized transmitter is
granted.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 12:01 PM Jeremy Grip  wrote:

> Is there any way to find out how many PALs there are at a given location,
> without actually putting a radio in the air (and does the radio interface
> actually tell you that)?
>
> Hard to know if it makes sense to jump in without a PAL or two.
>
>
> --
> 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] 3GHz CBRS PALs

[Jeremy Grip]

Is there any way to find out how many PALs there are at a given location, 
without actually putting a radio in the air (and does the radio interface 
actually tell you that)?

Hard to know if it makes sense to jump in without a PAL or two.


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

Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

[Mike Hammett]

I think the most I've paid to add a second conduit was $2/ft. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Steven Kenney"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:53:33 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 



Great point if he's stuck not owning it. If they are doing underground with a 
boring machine it may take 2x the time to put the extra conduit in. But usually 
the companies doing the work will cut you a break in cost. Could even split the 
costs of the installation so you have some fiber in ground in tandem. 



logo
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 
W: www.wavedirect.net 


- Original Message -

From: "chuck"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:15:46 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 






If I was building it, I would try to convince them to let me add a duct to two 
everywhere that I would own. 




From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:00 PM 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 


Sadly we're literally not allowed to own it. It's a USDA "ReConnect" grant. The 
grant awardee is the muni. USDA will have a hand on the wheel and their 
contract will literally not allow anyone but the awardee to own the network. 
We could potentially buy the network afterwards with USDA approval, but I'm 
told it's an uphill battle to get approved. 

It might be possible to structure the agreement so the muni owns it on paper 
and we have full control in reality. But whatever agreement we make has to be 
approved by the USDA. I might have to get them on the horn and see what they'd 
prefer. 


On 10/13/2020 3:05 PM, Steven Kenney wrote: 




It'll start out like most marriages. That should be all you need to know. I'd 
keep an eye on the divorce rates :) In my case I have the perfect wife.. but 
dealing with municipalities and government you can expect your wife to be a 
"Karen". 

I'd ensure you own the fiber and have access to work on the fiber. But 
guarantee them X amount of bandwidth over X period of time, you'll provide the 
labor and monitoring for all their connections. Get it in front of a lawyer. If 
shit goes downhill you both will be covered. Just make sure any future projects 
with them won't get squashed. 

logo
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 
W: www.wavedirect.net 

- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com 
To: "af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:36:13 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 


Anybody have direct experience with public-private partnerships as far 
as what works and what doesn't? 

I'm discussing with a county gov that has funding to build a network, 
and they're open to almost anything. The nature of their funding 
requires that they own the network. The nature of their knowledge level 
is that they have no idea how to be the network owner. So essentially 
it has to be a public-private partnership of some type. 

My first thought was we could lease fiber miles from them and own the 
electronics. They keep the lease payments in a fund which they use to 
pay for repairs. We could do repairs and send them bills based on an 
agreed upon fee schedule. 

Naturally I'd prefer exclusive access and I'm sure they'd prefer open 
access. I think my biggest argument in favor of exclusive access is 
when you have a problem there's only one throat to choke. 


-- 
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] public-private fiber models

[Steven Kenney]

We just did our first fiber build. We were going into an area we already had 
hundreds of customers, planned it all out went to the township to get the 
permit. Then we find out Cogeco who was sitting on that project for 5+ years 
was planning on doing it too. They caught wind of us being ready to do it . 
They had no plans to do it anytime soon but as soon as we were ready to dig, 
they were. (go figure) So we ended up doing a dual build and split the costs of 
the install. It actually saved us a lot of money and we pretty much retained 
all of our customers in the process. 

[ https://www.wavedirect.net/ |] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed ] [ 
https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/ ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/ ] [ 
https://twitter.com/wavedirect1 ] [ https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect ] 
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 
W: www.wavedirect.net 


From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 6:46:25 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 



They probably could. 


On 10/13/2020 5:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



Can the county sell IRUs as opposed to the underlying asset? 



- 
Mike Hammett 
[ http://www.ics-il.com/ | Intelligent
Computing Solutions ] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL ] [ 
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions ] [ 
https://twitter.com/ICSIL ] 
[ http://www.midwest-ix.com/ | Midwest
Internet Exchange ] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange ] [ 
https://twitter.com/mdwestix ] 
[ http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ | The
Brothers WISP ] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp ] [ 
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg | 


   ] 

From: "Adam Moffett" [ mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com |  ] 
To: [ mailto:af@af.afmug.com | af@af.afmug.com ] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 3:00:44 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 



Sadly we're literally not allowed to own it. It's a USDA "ReConnect" grant. The 
grant awardee is the muni. USDA will have a hand on the wheel and their 
contract will literally not allow anyone but the awardee to own the network. 

We could potentially buy the network afterwards with USDA approval, but I'm 
told it's an uphill battle to get approved. 


It might be possible to structure the agreement so the muni owns it on paper 
and we have full control in reality. But whatever agreement we make has to be 
approved by the USDA. I might have to get them on the horn and see what they'd 
prefer. 





On 10/13/2020 3:05 PM, Steven Kenney wrote: 

BQ_BEGIN

It'll start out like most marriages. That should be all you need to know. I'd 
keep an eye on the divorce rates :) In my case I have the perfect wife.. but 
dealing with municipalities and government you can expect your wife to be a 
"Karen". 

I'd ensure you own the fiber and have access to work on the fiber. But 
guarantee them X amount of bandwidth over X period of time, you'll provide the 
labor and monitoring for all their connections. Get it in front of a lawyer. If 
shit goes downhill you both will be covered. Just make sure any future projects 
with them won't get squashed. 

[ https://www.wavedirect.net/ |] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed ] [ 
https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/ ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/ ] [ 
https://twitter.com/wavedirect1 ] [ https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect ] 
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: [ mailto:st...@wavedirect.org | st...@wavedirect.org ] | P: 519-737-9283 
W: [ http://www.wavedirect.net/ | www.wavedirect.net ] 


From: "Adam Moffett" [ mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com |  ] 
To: "af" [ mailto:af@af.afmug.com |  ] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:36:13 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 

Anybody have direct experience with public-private partnerships as far 
as what works and what doesn't? 

I'm discussing with a county gov that has funding to build a network, 
and they're open to almost anything. The nature of their funding 
requires that they own the network. The nature of their knowledge level 
is that they have no idea how to be the network owner. So essentially 
it has to be a public-private partnership of some type. 

My first thought was we could lease fiber miles from them and own the 
electronics. They keep the lease payments in a fund which they use to 
pay for repairs. We could do repairs and send them bills based on an 
agreed upon fee schedule. 

Naturally I'd prefer exclusive access and I'm sure they'd prefer open 
access. I think my biggest argument in favor of exclusive 

Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models

[Steven Kenney]

Great point if he's stuck not owning it. If they are doing underground with a 
boring machine it may take 2x the time to put the extra conduit in. But usually 
the companies doing the work will cut you a break in cost. Could even split the 
costs of the installation so you have some fiber in ground in tandem. 

[ https://www.wavedirect.net/ |] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed ] [ 
https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/ ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/ ] [ 
https://twitter.com/wavedirect1 ] [ https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect ] 
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 
W: www.wavedirect.net 


From: "chuck"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 4:15:46 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 

If I was building it, I would try to convince them to let me add a duct to two 
everywhere that I would own. 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:00 PM 
To: af@af.afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 


Sadly we're literally not allowed to own it. It's a USDA "ReConnect" grant. The 
grant awardee is the muni. USDA will have a hand on the wheel and their 
contract will literally not allow anyone but the awardee to own the network. 

We could potentially buy the network afterwards with USDA approval, but I'm 
told it's an uphill battle to get approved. 


It might be possible to structure the agreement so the muni owns it on paper 
and we have full control in reality. But whatever agreement we make has to be 
approved by the USDA. I might have to get them on the horn and see what they'd 
prefer. 




On 10/13/2020 3:05 PM, Steven Kenney wrote: 



It'll start out like most marriages. That should be all you need to know. I'd 
keep an eye on the divorce rates :) In my case I have the perfect wife.. but 
dealing with municipalities and government you can expect your wife to be a 
"Karen". 
I'd ensure you own the fiber and have access to work on the fiber. But 
guarantee them X amount of bandwidth over X period of time, you'll provide the 
labor and monitoring for all their connections. Get it in front of a lawyer. If 
shit goes downhill you both will be covered. Just make sure any future projects 
with them won't get squashed. 
[ https://www.wavedirect.net/ |   ] 
[ https://www.facebook.com/ruralhighspeed ] [ 
https://www.instagram.com/wave.direct/ ] [ 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/wavedirect-telecommunication/ ] [ 
https://twitter.com/wavedirect1 ] [ https://www.youtube.com/user/WaveDirect ] 
STEVEN KENNEY 
DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY & CONTINUITY A: 158 Erie St. N | Leamington ON 
E: st...@wavedirect.org | P: 519-737-9283 
W: [ http://www.wavedirect.net/ | www.wavedirect.net ] 

From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com 
To: "af" mailto:af@af.afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:36:13 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] public-private fiber models 
Anybody have direct experience with public-private partnerships as far 
as what works and what doesn't? 

I'm discussing with a county gov that has funding to build a network, 
and they're open to almost anything. The nature of their funding 
requires that they own the network. The nature of their knowledge level 
is that they have no idea how to be the network owner. So essentially 
it has to be a public-private partnership of some type. 

My first thought was we could lease fiber miles from them and own the 
electronics. They keep the lease payments in a fund which they use to 
pay for repairs. We could do repairs and send them bills based on an 
agreed upon fee schedule. 

Naturally I'd prefer exclusive access and I'm sure they'd prefer open 
access. I think my biggest argument in favor of exclusive access is 
when you have a problem there's only one throat to choke. 


-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
[ http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/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] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Jeremy Grip]

Well, it is more like a PtP to the client.

Anybody ever had hands on a GO AP?

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:22 AM
To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf

Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this.  It is 
apparently for 2.4 GHz only.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll add 
Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are antenna 
arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable.  
The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you 
don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital 
beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in 
an indoor wifi environment.

I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas 
that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of 
variation.

One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was 
that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type 
of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.

I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
challenging to support with an analog beamformer.


On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  wrote:

A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
“smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that 
I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course 
better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple 
of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even 
better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector 
that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?

I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a 
dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see 
how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can 
enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. 

With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks 
like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious 
wireless investment here doesn't make any sense.
















-- 
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.comdata=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3Dreserved=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


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

Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Ken Hohhof]

The infamous "Vivato Rule".
http://www.vivato.com/pdfs/Vivato_Technical_White_Paper.pdf

Some would say the FCC was asleep at the wheel when they allowed this.  It is 
apparently for 2.4 GHz only.

-Original Message-
From: AF  On Behalf Of Harold Bledsoe
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 8:45 AM
To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll add 
Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are antenna 
arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable.  
The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you 
don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital 
beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in 
an indoor wifi environment.

I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas 
that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of 
variation.

One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was 
that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type 
of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.

I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
challenging to support with an analog beamformer.


On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  wrote:

A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
“smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that 
I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course 
better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple 
of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even 
better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector 
that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?

I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a 
dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see 
how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can 
enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. 

With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks 
like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious 
wireless investment here doesn't make any sense.
















-- 
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.comdata=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3Dreserved=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] WiFi Stds compliant beamforming sectors in 2.4?

[Harold Bledsoe]

There's a couple of things to break down here.  One is that there are 2 major 
kinds of beamforming - analog and digital.  The ones you mention (and I'll add 
Go Networks to the list) were using analog beamforming.  These are antenna 
arrays that can be phased together to make a stronger beam and is steerable.  
The chip-based beamforming in the WiFi standard is a bit different and you 
don't get this sort of powerful beam out of it.  That kind of digital 
beamforming is more useful for nulls mu-mimo isolation that would be useful in 
an indoor wifi environment.

I'm not too familiar with the cnmedusa design, but I get the impression it is 
more of an array of fixed sectors that have physically different coverage areas 
that are connected to different radio chains.  So that is yet another sort of 
variation.

One thing that made the analog beamforming systems achieve better coverage was 
that the FCC allowed (maybe they still do?) higher EIRP from this specific type 
of system.  So it had physically more power and punch to it.

I am personally not aware of any companies actively developing analog 
beamforming systems like those older ones.  It gets significantly more 
difficult for those designs to support the sort of advanced macs that came 
after 11n - 11ax supports MU-MIMO and OFDMA for example which would be 
challenging to support with an analog beamformer.


On 10/13/20, 3:42 PM, "AF on behalf of Jeremy Grip"  wrote:

A few years ago, when the electrical utility trashed the 900 spectrum with 
“smart” meters, I did a forklift upgrade of a bunch of 900 PtMP with some old 
Wavion beamforming sectors talking to ubnt clients in 2.4. I was surprised that 
I got just about the same coverage that I had with 900 (Trango) and of course 
better throughput. Those original Wavions were b/g; I’ve since found a couple 
of .11n versions from the brief last gasp of Alvarion (R.I.P.) that did even 
better. Anybody know if anybody’s currently producing a beamforming 2.4 sector 
that will talk to standards compliant 11n radios?

I’m assuming that the beamforming saved this location—one tower plus a 
couple of other little nodes in a little spread out village in the middle of a 
dense National Forest of mixed tall evergreens and hardwood. I just don’t see 
how 2.4 could match the old 900 penetration otherwise, but maybe somebody can 
enlighten me. It wouldn’t be worth it to try and change out all the 
clients--more than a few are 50’+ up in trees. If there was an ePMP medusa in 
2.4 and that sex-change from ubnt to ePMP worked it would be worth a try, but 
as far as I know Cambium's just doing medusa in 5GHz. 

With my other hand I'm working to see FTTH across the region and it looks 
like it'll probably happen within the next five or six years, so any serious 
wireless investment here doesn't make any sense.
















-- 
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.comdata=04%7C01%7C%7Cdc78411902c54763564b08d86fb8903d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637382185761458359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=zbo9OIz4lCXUY9IyN4i8oxI14HEuhvlHVUrlhsJ2W7Y%3Dreserved=0

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