Re: [AFMUG] 450 AP and CIR.

[Sam Lambie]

Paul,
What is your Guaranteed rate? How many Subs (max)  do you have on any given
sector? And of course, what is the burst rate?

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

>  I think we do what you are describing.  Burst (up to XX) amount and then
> GUARANTEED sustain bandwidth as well.  The Sustained value helps us
> calculate/ protect the predictability and the capacity asset of the AP
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 1:19 PM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450 AP and CIR.
>
>
>
> Travis did something that guaranteed a certain amount of CIR to the
> customer as I recall.  He was pretty successful.  I don’t recall exactly
> how he set it up.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sterling Jacobson 
>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 11:09 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450 AP and CIR.
>
>
>
> My last company we did exactly that.
>
>
>
> Lower SM to AP count and stacked AP’s for redundancy and maintenance.
>
>
>
> Worked very well.
>
>
>
> Customers liked the burst, understanding that it went lower during peak
> times.
>
>
>
> As I understand it, when there are more SM’s with CIR that exceed the
> bandwidth of the AP, then it just falls back to best effort.
>
>
>
> In other words, if all are priority CIR, then none are priority anymore.
>
> They just end up in the same CIR pool which is then portioned out
> according to priority channels and regular best effort queues.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Sam Lambie
> *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 9:51 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] 450 AP and CIR.
>
>
>
> We are looking at other ways to sell bandwidth. Looking at the big guys
> and how their speeds are all over the map during peak times, but you seem
> to get a decent chunk of the pie during peak times is interesting as a
> business model.
>
> What if you sell up to 30 mbps with a CIR of 2 mbps, leave all the SM's at
> unlimited throttling. That way if a customer is one of the only users on
> the AP sucking down bandwidth, they would see the 30 mbps. Makes them happy
> to see very fast speeds during non peak times. Obviously, during peak
> times, 7pm to 12 am, they would be guaranteed their 2 mbps. Kind of like
> what Verizon and ATT do in bigger cities.
>
> - Has anyone done something like this? Does it work well?
>
> - How well does the AP handle load balancing as subscribers use the
> available wireless bandwidith? We would like to stack AP's to lower the
> overall SM count on each AP to keep the CIR within available bandwidth.
> Say, put max 40 users on each AP at 2 mbps CIR.
>
> - If one of the stacked AP's fails and the SM's jump to the other one,
> what happens if the CIR is greater than the sum of the AP?
>
>
> --
>
> --
> *Sam Lambie*
> Taosnet Wireless Tech.
> 575-758-7598 Office
> www.Taosnet.com 
>



-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com 

[AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Matt]

Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency reuse?

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

It's expected, yes.


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Matt  wrote:

> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> reuse?
>

[AFMUG] Long Lines Book

[Gino Villarini]

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/spencer-harding-the-long-lines/?utm_content=buffer5cb88



Gino A. Villarini
President
[cid:7DB94C46-DCD5-497B-AF98-B5D5B5DCF1DD]

[AFMUG] The world's internet exchanges

[Bill Prince]

   http://www.internetexchangemap.com/

Re: [AFMUG] Dc power supply + solar controller for cheap dc ups?

[Bill Prince]

+1

What Chuck said.

I did talk some with an engineer at MidNite Solar about using one of 
their controllers this way.  His comments were similar to what Chuck 
said.  One, you want a power supply that can supply enough current to 
power the equipment, plus enough to charge the batteries at whatever 
their bulk charge rate is.  Two, you want a power supply with a current 
limit because solar panels will self-limit at whatever their maximum 
current rating is, and you don't want the solar controller to "go over" 
in an attempt to find the maximum power point.


I'm assuming you would be using an MPPT controller of some kind. The one 
that I was looking at was the "Kid" from MidNite Solar. That particular 
controller I liked because (1) It would handle almost any battery 
voltage up to 48V, (2) It could handle charge currents up to 30 amps, 
and (3) would handle input voltages up to 150V.



bp


On 3/15/2015 8:31 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Any charger with decent current limiting will do the job.  You want a 
power supply that will pull the load plus the low battery current, so 
at least twice the load current probably would be a minimum.  What 
load and how big are your batts?  Normally you would want to have a 
current of at least 10% of the amp hour rating available to charge 
plus the load current.  But if  the batts are really really dead, it 
may be a while before the voltage comes up to an operational level.

*From:* TJ Trout 
*Sent:* Saturday, March 14, 2015 4:53 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Dc power supply + solar controller for cheap dc ups?

What do I need besides a dc power supply to be able to have a dc ups 
with the ability to charge batteries and have seemless transfer to and 
from batteries when ac fails as well as limiting on the batteries 
being charged so the charging doesn't over run the current of the psu 
once the ac comes back ? Aka poor man's ups? Dell nps700ab poweredge 
supplies are 12v 700w for like 5 bucks

Re: [AFMUG] Long Lines Book

[Chuck McCown]

That is fun.  I think I recognize a few of them.  Many of them in Utah and 
Nevada are on BLM lands.  You can sometimes get them real cheap if you agree to 
the decommissioning rules.  That part is the expensive part as they have 
underground fuel tanks.

One I toured when still in operation and still hauling network TV signals was 
near Condon Oregon.  It had an airconditioning system that ran year around 
along with a furnace that ran year around.  
They regulated temps by mixing the hot and cold air.  

Here is another site documenting them:
http://www.drgibson.com/towers/

This story is fascinating.  It outlines a domestic terrorism attack that tried 
to bring down the AT&T microwave network in 1961 using commandos:
http://www.beatriceco.com/bti/porticus/bell/longlines-expdam.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19610619&id=2-ktIBAJ&sjid=eDEDIBAJ&pg=6271,5512713
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19610619&id=gYlOIBAJ&sjid=HQEEIBAJ&pg=6574,2366168




From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 8:55 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Long Lines Book

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/spencer-harding-the-long-lines/?utm_content=buffer5cb88



Gino A. Villarini
President

Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

I don't think he ever went... :)

  - Original Message - 
  From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit


  If Steve goes to AF next year, I will go again.


  On 3/15/2015 9:52 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

That was several years ago.  Just pointing out the poetry.

From: James Howard 
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:23 PM
To: mailto:af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit

He doesn’t seem to be displaying the type of emotion that would be expected 
upon receiving something so awesome!



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of cstann...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit



This is art.




From: "Chuck McCown"  

Sender: "Af"  

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:12:12 +

To: 

ReplyTo: af@afmug.com 

Subject: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit





-Original Message- From: Nate Burke Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 
2013 2:24 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Award Delivered 
Mr. Hohhof was the proud recipient today of the first ever "Things said in 
an email which nobody would do, but was done my Mr. McCown" Award.

Nate







-
Animal Farm Microwave Users Group - www.afmug.com







-- 

Jenny




Total Control Panel
   Login
   
 
  To: ja...@litewire.net
 
  From: 
014c199f75fe-1de621af-d123-4370-a598-ec5028814c0e-000...@amazonses.com
 
   Remove amazonses.com from my allow list
 
   
 
You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is 
on your allow list.
   
 

Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit

[Ken Hohhof]

He claims they keep him on a short leash.  Maybe SLC would be outside the range 
of his GPS ankle bracelet?

Best hope would be he attends via a MVPD like the Shelbot in Big Bang Theory.  
The Stevebot!


From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:38 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit


I don't think he ever went... :)

  - Original Message - 
  From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit

  If Steve goes to AF next year, I will go again.


  On 3/15/2015 9:52 AM, Chuck McCown wrote:

That was several years ago.  Just pointing out the poetry.

From: James Howard 
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:23 PM
To: mailto:af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit

He doesn’t seem to be displaying the type of emotion that would be expected 
upon receiving something so awesome!


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of cstann...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 1:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit


This is art.




From: "Chuck McCown"  

Sender: "Af"  

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 06:12:12 +

To: 

ReplyTo: af@afmug.com 

Subject: [AFMUG] My wife gets the credit




-Original Message- From: Nate Burke Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 
2013 2:24 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Award Delivered 
Mr. Hohhof was the proud recipient today of the first ever "Things said in 
an email which nobody would do, but was done my Mr. McCown" Award.

Nate







-
Animal Farm Microwave Users Group - www.afmug.com






-- 

Jenny




Total Control Panel
   Login
   
 
  To: ja...@litewire.net
 
  From: 
014c199f75fe-1de621af-d123-4370-a598-ec5028814c0e-000...@amazonses.com
 
   Remove amazonses.com from my allow list
 
   
 
You received this message because the domain amazonses.com is 
on your allow list.
   
 

[AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

apparently we're out of deluxe syncinjectorscan we use a parasitic instead 
with a sync injector?
we had a syncpipe die last night

Re: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux

[Bill Prince]

Yes.  There is a wiring thing you do on 2 ports of the parasitic to turn 
it into a basic.  If you want to emulate a deluxe, there is probably 
something else you need to do, but I don't know exactly what it is.  
Their web site calls the parasitic "universal".


bp


On 3/16/2015 9:29 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
apparently we're out of deluxe syncinjectorscan we use a parasitic 
instead with a sync injector?

we had a syncpipe die last night

[AFMUG] Test

[Bill Prince]

just  wondering  if  the  goofy  characters  that  we  see "sometimes"  
happens  when  we  are  doing  HTML.  This  is  plain text,  and  I'm  
betting  that  the  goofy  characters  are  a  no show?


--

bp

Re: [AFMUG] Test

[Glen Waldrop]

And here I thought the goofy characters was a secret message...



- Original Message - 
From: "Bill Prince" 

To: "Motorola III" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:37 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Test





just  wondering  if  the  goofy  characters  that  we  see "sometimes"  
happens  when  we  are  doing  HTML.  This  is  plain text,  and  I'm  
betting  that  the  goofy  characters  are  a  no show?


--

bp

Re: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux

[Ken Hohhof]

Do you have a Basic, that’s what we use.

Did you power cycle the pipe?

From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com ; memb...@wispa.org 
Subject: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux



apparently we're out of deluxe syncinjectorscan we use a parasitic instead 
with a sync injector?
we had a syncpipe die last night

Re: [AFMUG] Test

[Bill Prince]

That's the key! Now the goofy characters will show up?

bp


On 3/16/2015 9:37 AM, Bill Prince wrote:


just  wondering  if  the  goofy  characters  that  we  see 
"sometimes"  happens  when  we  are  doing  HTML.  This  is  plain 
text,  and  I'm  betting  that  the  goofy  characters  are  a  no show?

Re: [AFMUG] Test

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

yes.  plain text works better. :)

  - Original Message - 
  From: Bill Prince 
  To: Motorola III 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:37 AM
  Subject: [AFMUG] Test



  just  wondering  if  the  goofy  characters  that  we  see "sometimes"  
  happens  when  we  are  doing  HTML.  This  is  plain text,  and  I'm  
  betting  that  the  goofy  characters  are  a  no show?

  -- 

  bp
  

Re: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

nope, all planning before driving to the site.  site is 45 mins from office

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:38 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux


  Do you have a Basic, that’s what we use.

  Did you power cycle the pipe?

  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:29 AM
  To: af@afmug.com ; memb...@wispa.org 
  Subject: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux



  apparently we're out of deluxe syncinjectorscan we use a parasitic 
instead with a sync injector?
  we had a syncpipe die last night

Re: [AFMUG] Random drug Testing for employee/Installer ?

[Dan Petermann]

Or, you could give your employees the amount you pay including the tax. 


Don’t ever think that your employer in giving you something for free. You are 
being compensated for your work in ways other than cash.

Its the same concept as taxing business. Businesses do not pay taxes, people 
do. Yes, they are accessed a tax, however their customers pay the tax in the 
form of increased cost of goods and services. 



On Mar 14, 2015, at 6:09 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller  wrote:

>  
> Lets not forget that if you're an employee, your employer is paying a nice 
> chunk of your tax.  Don't we match it 50% or something?  Seems like we do
>  
> we don't just take it out of your check.  We get to pay some into it, too...
>  
> (i think)
>  
> - Original Message -
> From: That One Guy
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Random drug Testing for employee/Installer ?
> 
> I never sow why people are so against employers choosing to offer healthcare, 
> Why would anybody be against a company offering a benefit...no company cars, 
> no christmas bonuses, Since the government needs out of the mix, no Overtime. 
> Thanks to the new mandate, i did the estimator last night and no matter how i 
> look at it im paying 12k+ out of my pocket in one form or another before 
> insurance kicks in each year, i wouldnt be able to pay that if my employer 
> hadnt opted to provide the insurance as a benefit. You want to tell me that 
> my employer shouldnt be allowed to do that? I dont have a problem if hes 
> telling me I cant smoke dope in exchange for 12 grand worth of something, I 
> do have the option to walk away
> 
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> After I left I guess they did mandate a certain degree of fitness or you had 
> to pay a fee to a fitness instructor or some such thing.  I heard lots of 
> complaints.  Mandatory fitness workouts, everybody has to sit on a ball 
> instead of a chair etc.  Not sure if they are still doing that or not.  Don’t 
> care too much anymore. 
>  
> From: Ryan Ray
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:45 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Random drug Testing for employee/Installer ?
>  
> So where do you draw the line? Eat a cheeseburger for lunch, get suspended. 
> Go skydiving, well you're risking our insurance you're fired. Too old? Fired.
>  
> What happened to America, land of the free?
>  
>  
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> The tobacco issue is not a-personal-off-hours recreational thing for me.  If 
> you want health insurance, no tobacco.  Not saying you will get fired for 
> using tobacco.  
>  
> We were self insured.  We did not want to have to pay for health issues 
> caused by smoking tobacco.  Cannot legally mandate BMI (yet) or other 
> unhealthy things but you can pick on the smokers.  It was not an employment 
> issue, it was an insurance issue.
>  
> Drug use is an employment issue.  But recreational alcohol use is a personal 
> rights thing as far as I am concerned.  Tobacco is too but I can point to 
> many more smoking caused lung cancer deaths among family and friends than I 
> can alcoholism related deaths.  Pot is somewhere in between.  Pot smokers 
> probably don’t suck down 5 packs equivalent a day...  Not sure how much pot 
> it takes to cause the same amount of lung cancer in a population as tobacco 
> does. 
>  
> Kinda a mess trying to keep from regulating peoples lives balanced with 
> protecting the business and your pocketbook.   What is a drug?  Alcohol 
> certainly could be considered a drug...  Why can you use alcohol and not pot 
> or anything else.  Dang, I should have taken that minor in philosophy...
>  
> From: That One Guy
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:03 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Random drug Testing for employee/Installer ?
>  
> he will also get a dui conviction in many states. 
> There are people who have been terminated for failing drug screens when 
> visiting other countries where the laws are different.
> It will be a simple matter in locales where its still illegal, just as it is 
> with that.
>  
> But like chucks no nicotine policy, which is great, the employer should 
> always be able to mandate the staff they have.
>  
> The whole pot battle is a joke, framing it as medicine, there are very few 
> proven conditions where it is any more beneficial than controlled substances 
> already available on the market. Call it what it is, seeking the end of 
> prohibition of a recreational drug. (rant)
>  
> We have the top scientists and researchers at our disposal. As it progresses 
> to a more likely state in the near future of pure legalization, they will 
> find a method for testing for intoxication similar to BAC with the booze.
>  
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> This is going to get interest over the next couple of years when it comes to 
> marijuana.
> 
> Many places are looking to l

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Matt]

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4

>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

Yes.  It's the AP hardware.  Just a software tick disabling sync right now.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 16, 2015 1:30 PM, "Matt"  wrote:

> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Mathew Howard]

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the
exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt  wrote:

> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Sriram Chaturvedi]

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio 
(identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the 
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna 
all included) but with a software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going 
forward ☺) to disable sync functionality. The radio will still track satellites 
and provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,
Sriram

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the 
exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes 
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in software, but 
Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4

>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
> allow sync.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the
> exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
> point-to-point.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
> wrote:
>
> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Sriram Chaturvedi]

No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync 
capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a 
software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that you 
don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder your 
product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
 wrote:
Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio 
(identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the 
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna 
all included) but with a software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going 
forward ☺) to disable sync functionality. The radio will still track satellites 
and provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,
Sriram

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the 
exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes 
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in software, but 
Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4

>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

>  No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
> software license.
>
>
>
> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>
>
>
> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
> allow sync.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the
> exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
> point-to-point.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
> wrote:
>
> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Test

[Jaime Solorza]

goofy?  I thought I was cool...wow...

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> That's the key! Now the goofy characters will show up?
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 3/16/2015 9:37 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
>>
>> just  wondering  if  the  goofy  characters  that  we  see "sometimes"
>> happens  when  we  are  doing  HTML.  This  is  plain text,  and  I'm
>> betting  that  the  goofy  characters  are  a  no show?
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] just confirming - sync - packetflux

[George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)]

http://manuals.packetflux.com/index.php?page=using-a-syncpipe-parasitic-with-a-syncinjector

On 3/16/2015 11:33 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
Yes.� There is a wiring thing you do on 2 ports of the parasitic to 
turn it into a basic.� If you want to emulate a deluxe, there is 
probably something else you need to do, but I don't know exactly what 
it is.� Their web site calls the parasitic "universal".


bp


On 3/16/2015 9:29 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:

�
�
apparently we're out of deluxe syncinjectorscan we use a 
parasitic instead with a sync injector?

we had a syncpipe die last night
�
�

Re: [AFMUG] Test

[Mathew Howard]

Well, you did show up...

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> goofy?  I thought I was cool...wow...
>
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> That's the key! Now the goofy characters will show up?
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 3/16/2015 9:37 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> just  wondering  if  the  goofy  characters  that  we  see "sometimes"
>>> happens  when  we  are  doing  HTML.  This  is  plain text,  and  I'm
>>> betting  that  the  goofy  characters  are  a  no show?
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)]

Dude, for real, more licensing?

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
> wrote:


No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with
sync capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of
sync through a software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I
understand that you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I
don't see why you'd hinder your product and our services by never
enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP
sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d
radio (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110
PTP comes with the Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE
port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a
software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to
disable sync functionality. The radio will still track
satellites and provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,

Sriram

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP,
the PTP is the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does
have a GPS port (it even comes with the GPS antenna), but has
it currently has sync disabled in software, but Cambium has
stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4


>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware
update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[John Butler]

The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to enable 
GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration – that is one 
“SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to enable that.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber 
Broadcasting)
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?
On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
 wrote:
No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync 
capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a 
software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that you 
don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder your 
product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
 wrote:
Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio 
(identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the 
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna 
all included) but with a software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going 
forward ☺) to disable sync functionality. The radio will still track satellites 
and provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,
Sriram

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the 
exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes 
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in software, but 
Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4

>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

Yes!!


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, John Butler <
john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to
> enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration –
> that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
> enable that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
> (Cyber Broadcasting)
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Dude, for real, more licensing?
>
> On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
> software license.
>
>
>
> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>
>
>
> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
> allow sync.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the
> exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
> point-to-point.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
> wrote:
>
> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Mathew Howard]

Excellent! I guess we won't be needing an angry mob then...

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Yes!!
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, John Butler <
> john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you
>> to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration –
>> that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
>> enable that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
>> (Cyber Broadcasting)
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>
>>
>>
>> Dude, for real, more licensing?
>>
>> On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
>> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
>> software license.
>>
>>
>>
>> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
>> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
>> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
>> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
>> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
>> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
>> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
>> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
>> allow sync.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sriram
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
>> *To:* af
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>
>>
>>
>> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is
>> the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
>> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
>> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
>> point-to-point.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It's expected, yes.
>>
>> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for
>> frequency
>> >> reuse?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Bill Prince]

Do I have to put away my pitchfork?

bp


On 3/16/2015 12:16 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Excellent! I guess we won't be needing an angry mob then...

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:


Yes!!


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, John Butler
mailto:john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will
allow you to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in
the PTP configuration – that is one “SM” connected. You will
not need to purchase a license key to enable that.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
(Cyber Broadcasting)
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Software license? Auuugh.  What happened to
Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold
today with sync capabilities disabled. There is a plan to
allow enabling of sync through a software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I
understand that you don't want them used for PTMP sync,
but I don't see why you'd hinder your product and our
services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you
enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the
Unsync’d radio (identified by the two Ethernet ports).
The Force 110 PTP comes with the Connectorized radio
with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a
software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going
forward J) to disable sync functionality. The radio
will still track satellites and provide coordinates
but will not allow sync.

Thanks,

Sriram

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew
Howard
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a
PTP, the PTP is the exact same hardware as the synced
AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes with the
GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled
in software, but Cambium has stated that they are
planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4


>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a
firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Adam Moffett]

The clarification seems to make the pitchfork unnecessary.


Do I have to put away my pitchfork?

bp


On 3/16/2015 12:16 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Excellent! I guess we won't be needing an angry mob then...

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:


Yes!!


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, John Butler
mailto:john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will
allow you to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in
the PTP configuration – that is one “SM” connected.  You will
not need to purchase a license key to enable that.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
(Cyber Broadcasting)
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Software license? Auuugh.  What happened to
Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold
today with sync capabilities disabled. There is a plan to
allow enabling of sync through a software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I
understand that you don't want them used for PTMP sync,
but I don't see why you'd hinder your product and our
services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you
enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the
Unsync’d radio (identified by the two Ethernet
ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and
GPS chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a
software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going
forward J) to disable sync functionality. The radio
will still track satellites and provide coordinates
but will not allow sync.

Thanks,

Sriram

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew
Howard
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not
a PTP, the PTP is the exact same hardware as the
synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync
disabled in software, but Cambium has stated that
they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4


>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a
firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

[AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Darin Steffl]

Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one
of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
have talked to the landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
shingles, the whole works.

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
in place since we were given permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.


-- 
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

Does the tenant have exclusive right to the area of the roof where you mounted 
the antenna or is it a shared area among tenants? Does the landlord own 
multiple units there or just the unit where you installed the antenna?
 
Its obviously an OTARD issue and I would tell the landlord to pound sand. 
Apparently there is some part of OTARD that states you can't cause damage but 
the burden of proof that "damage" was caused is on the landlord.
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Darin Steffl" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:56pm
To: "memb...@wispa.org" , "af@afmug.com" , 
"Principal WISPA Member List" 
Subject: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. -- 


Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
[ www.mnwifi.com ]( http://www.mnwifi.com/ )
507-634-WiFi
[  ]( http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ) [ Like us on Facebook ]( 
http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi )

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Tyler Treat]

Do you have anything that the tenant signed saying they accept responsibility?


I've  had a few of those over the years - usually they cool down and it goes 
away.   about 75/25.





From: Af  on behalf of Darin Steffl 

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:56 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; af@afmug.com; Principal WISPA Member List
Subject: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works.

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.


--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
[http://www.snoitulosten.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/facebook-small.jpg]
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Sean Heskett]

OTARD rules cover it.

It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the building
including the roof.

If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter.

You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his
property more rentable.



On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl  wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one
> of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
> have talked to the landlord.
>
> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
> shingles, the whole works.
>
> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
> in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
>
> Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
>
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Matt]

Any guess on latency when in this mode?


On Monday, March 16, 2015, John Butler 
wrote:

>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to
> enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration –
> that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
> enable that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *George
> Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Dude, for real, more licensing?
>
> On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
> software license.
>
>
>
> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Josh
> Luthman
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>
>
>
> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com
> >
> wrote:
>
>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
> allow sync.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mathew
> Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the
> exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
> point-to-point.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt  > wrote:
>
> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> ePMP Force 110 - Montagem 
>
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

The newer PTP mode is ~2ms.  Older is ~8ms I think?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Matt  wrote:

> Any guess on latency when in this mode?
>
>
> On Monday, March 16, 2015, John Butler 
> wrote:
>
>>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you
>> to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration –
>> that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
>> enable that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
>> (Cyber Broadcasting)
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>
>>
>>
>> Dude, for real, more licensing?
>>
>> On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
>> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
>> software license.
>>
>>
>>
>> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
>> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
>> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
>> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
>> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
>> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
>> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
>> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
>> allow sync.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Sriram
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
>> *To:* af
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>
>>
>>
>> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is
>> the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
>> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
>> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
>> point-to-point.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It's expected, yes.
>>
>> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>>
>> ePMP Force 110 - Montagem 
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for
>> frequency
>> >> reuse?
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[That One Guy]

I would tell the landlord that you arent doing anything just yet, and tell
the landlord and the tenant to come to an arrangement. Discuss with the
landlord that had you been aware it is a rental you would have contacted
him, but at this point it is a lease issue on the part of the tenant. in
the mean time find out for certain about OTARD. Plan for the worst
(lawsuit) hope for the best (landlord cools down)

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:

> OTARD rules cover it.
>
> It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the
> building including the roof.
>
> If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter.
>
> You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his
> property more rentable.
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to
>> one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
>> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
>> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
>> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
>> have talked to the landlord.
>>
>> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
>> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
>> shingles, the whole works.
>>
>> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
>> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
>> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
>> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
>> in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
>>
>> Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
>> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
>> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>  Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>


-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Darin Steffl]

It appears to be 4 town houses connected to each other and our tech mounted
over the tenants unit so I would assume it would be exclusive use and not a
shared space?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, That One Guy 
wrote:

> I would tell the landlord that you arent doing anything just yet, and tell
> the landlord and the tenant to come to an arrangement. Discuss with the
> landlord that had you been aware it is a rental you would have contacted
> him, but at this point it is a lease issue on the part of the tenant. in
> the mean time find out for certain about OTARD. Plan for the worst
> (lawsuit) hope for the best (landlord cools down)
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>
>> OTARD rules cover it.
>>
>> It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the
>> building including the roof.
>>
>> If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the
>> renter.
>>
>> You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his
>> property more rentable.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to
>>> one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
>>> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
>>> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
>>> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
>>> have talked to the landlord.
>>>
>>> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
>>> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
>>> shingles, the whole works.
>>>
>>> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
>>> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
>>> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
>>> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
>>> in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
>>>
>>> Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
>>> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
>>> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Darin Steffl
>>> Minnesota WiFi
>>> www.mnwifi.com
>>> 507-634-WiFi
>>>  Like us on Facebook
>>> 
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>



-- 
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

Does the landlord own all four?
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Darin Steffl" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:19pm
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



It appears to be 4 town houses connected to each other and our tech mounted 
over the tenants unit so I would assume it would be exclusive use and not a 
shared space?


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, That One Guy <[ thatoneguyst...@gmail.com ]( 
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com )> wrote:

I would tell the landlord that you arent doing anything just yet, and tell the 
landlord and the tenant to come to an arrangement. Discuss with the landlord 
that had you been aware it is a rental you would have contacted him, but at 
this point it is a lease issue on the part of the tenant. in the mean time find 
out for certain about OTARD. Plan for the worst (lawsuit) hope for the best 
(landlord cools down)




On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Sean Heskett <[ af...@zirkel.us ]( 
mailto:af...@zirkel.us )> wrote:
OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the building 
including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his property 
more rentable.




On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl <[ darin.ste...@mnwifi.com ]( 
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com )> wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. -- 


Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
[ www.mnwifi.com ]( http://www.mnwifi.com/ )
507-634-WiFi
[  ]( http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ) [ Like us on Facebook ]( 
http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi )

-- 




If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.

-- 


Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
[ www.mnwifi.com ]( http://www.mnwifi.com/ )
507-634-WiFi
[  ]( http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ) [ Like us on Facebook ]( 
http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi )

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Josh Luthman]

I think it's if the roof that only the tenant has you're good.  The share
space would be a roof or hallway that covers multiple units.


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> It appears to be 4 town houses connected to each other and our tech
> mounted over the tenants unit so I would assume it would be exclusive use
> and not a shared space?
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, That One Guy 
> wrote:
>
>> I would tell the landlord that you arent doing anything just yet, and
>> tell the landlord and the tenant to come to an arrangement. Discuss with
>> the landlord that had you been aware it is a rental you would have
>> contacted him, but at this point it is a lease issue on the part of the
>> tenant. in the mean time find out for certain about OTARD. Plan for the
>> worst (lawsuit) hope for the best (landlord cools down)
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:
>>
>>> OTARD rules cover it.
>>>
>>> It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the
>>> building including the roof.
>>>
>>> If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the
>>> renter.
>>>
>>> You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his
>>> property more rentable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>>>
 Hey all,

 So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to
 one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
 rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
 dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
 on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
 have talked to the landlord.

 The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
 restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
 shingles, the whole works.

 I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
 pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
 We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
 any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
 in place since we were given permission from the tenant?

 Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
 siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
 the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.


 --
 Darin Steffl
 Minnesota WiFi
 www.mnwifi.com
 507-634-WiFi
  Like us on Facebook
 

>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
>> as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Mathew Howard]

That's flexible mode though... I'm assuming latency is going to be the same
is it is with PtMP Synced mode, which I think is supposed to be about 17ms.
But I'm assuming that's going to be reduced quite a lot when the 2.5ms
frame size is available.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> The newer PTP mode is ~2ms.  Older is ~8ms I think?
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Matt  wrote:
>
>> Any guess on latency when in this mode?
>>
>>
>> On Monday, March 16, 2015, John Butler 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you
>>> to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration –
>>> that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
>>> enable that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
>>> (Cyber Broadcasting)
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dude, for real, more licensing?
>>>
>>> On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
>>> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
>>> software license.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
>>> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
>>> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
>>> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
>>> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
>>> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
>>> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
>>> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality.
>>> The radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
>>> allow sync.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Sriram
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
>>> *To:* af
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is
>>> the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
>>> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
>>> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
>>> point-to-point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > It's expected, yes.
>>>
>>> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>>>
>>> ePMP Force 110 - Montagem 
>>>
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for
>>> frequency
>>> >> reuse?
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[AFMUG] Netflix open connect

[TJ Trout]

Has anyone successfully petitioned netflix to receive a server when you
don't meet the 5gbps requirement ?

We have a extension of our network where we are back hauling over a gig 50
miles away and I need to upgrade the radios once again, I know if I had
this server It would drop our usage over the link by half...

Wonder if you can pay for one ?

Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

[Cassidy B. Larson]

I bugged them for over a year and they finally gave us a set once we got up to 
3.3Gbps peak. We got them deployed early last year.   When I was discussing it 
they said they were working on some sort of revision for remote POPs since 
we’re in the same boat, but I haven’t seen anything come from it yet.  Problem 
is they are fed at a max of 1.2Gbps (each) for up to 10-12 hours a night on 
library/catalog updates, so a 10G to feed them is probably required.

-c

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 2:46 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
> 
> Has anyone successfully petitioned netflix to receive a server when you don't 
> meet the 5gbps requirement ?
> 
> We have a extension of our network where we are back hauling over a gig 50 
> miles away and I need to upgrade the radios once again, I know if I had this 
> server It would drop our usage over the link by half...
> 
> Wonder if you can pay for one ?
> 

Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Darin Steffl]

So the landlord owns 6 townhomes and they all share the same roof. It
sounds like this is a common space and one not protected by OTARD if I read
it right. If that sounds right to you guys, my next option would be to ask
permission on behalf of the tenant to leave the equipment up since it's
already there.

If they still say no, I can tell them to talk with the tenant since we were
given permission to mount the antenna on the roof and approval on drilling
hole for cable.

Any other ideas?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:46 PM, tim Maylone <
t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com> wrote:

> One reason we use nonpenetrating.
> Second is a signed form providing you permission.
>
> Otard does not protect you from property damage.
>
>
> Tim Maylone - General Manager
>
> Cherry Capital Connection believes that every home deserves High Speed
> Internet. Where you choose to live or work should not be a barrier to
> access. It is our mission to make this a reality "one customer" at a time.
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
> From: alex phillips
> Date:03/16/2015 4:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: memb...@wispa.org
> Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
> Also, since now the deed is done why not ask the land lord if they can
> just keep it.  It is ultimately their responsibility to fix all of this in
> the future so why loose the service and pay for repairs.
>
> I think you can explain to the land lord how the work was done and the
> tenant should explain how they are going to fix it all when they leave but
> honestly, having internet there makes the place more rent-able and all my
> landlords say leave it.
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to
>> one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
>> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
>> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
>> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
>> have talked to the landlord.
>>
>> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
>> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
>> shingles, the whole works.
>>
>> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
>> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
>> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
>> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
>> in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
>>
>> Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
>> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
>> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>  Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Members mailing list
>> memb...@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Alex Phillips*
> CEO and General Manager
> RBNS.net
> HighSpeedLink.net
> *WISPA.org Board of Directors ** (2011-2016)*
> *WISPA Vice President (2014-2015)*
> *FCC Committee Chairman*
> *540-908-3993 <540-908-3993>*
>
> ___
> Members mailing list
> memb...@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>


-- 
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[John Butler]

Matt is correct about the latency.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:42 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's flexible mode though... I'm assuming latency is going to be the same is 
it is with PtMP Synced mode, which I think is supposed to be about 17ms. But 
I'm assuming that's going to be reduced quite a lot when the 2.5ms frame size 
is available.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
The newer PTP mode is ~2ms.  Older is ~8ms I think?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Matt 
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Any guess on latency when in this mode?


On Monday, March 16, 2015, John Butler 
mailto:john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:
The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to enable 
GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration – that is one 
“SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to enable that.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber 
Broadcasting)
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?
On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
 wrote:
No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync 
capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a 
software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that you 
don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder your 
product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi 
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>>
 wrote:
Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio 
(identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the 
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna 
all included) but with a software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going 
forward ☺) to disable sync functionality. The radio will still track satellites 
and provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,
Sriram

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the 
exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes 
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in software, but 
Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
ePMP Force 110 - Montagem

>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

[AFMUG] let's see the FCC regulate this

[Rory Conaway]

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-scheme-states-transmitting-physical.html

Probably won't be out before the end of the year but at least there is a 
working theory unless someone has an intergalactic interferometer in their 
garage.

Rory Conaway * Triad Wireless * CEO
4226 S. 37th Street * Phoenix * AZ 85040
602-426-0542
r...@triadwireless.net
www.triadwireless.net

It is better to walk alone, than with a crowd going the wrong direction.

[AFMUG] "Tower Construction Corporation"- Sioux City, Iowa

[Paul McCall]

Anybody have any insight on this company?  We acquired 300 ft. (20ft sections) 
of an "angle iron" style tower recently in pretty good condition.  However, we 
cant seem to find company information on it.

This is stamped on some of the pieces..."Tower Construction Corp"- Sioux City, 
Iowa

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.com
pa...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Patrick Leary]

This is from the FCC website re the OTARD FAQs:

"The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a 
community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners where 
the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area.  Such common areas may 
include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit.  Therefore, 
restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas are enforceable."

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D0600E.41560730]





From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 
Paul Conlin
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:16 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

It doesn’t sound like a common roof to me.  If the houses are the typical where 
there are 6 houses side-to-side-to-side each would have its own roof.  So six 
roofs all connected to look like one roof.  If you look carefully in the attics 
you will see the firewalls divide to create six individual attics and, by 
extension, six individual roofs.  Tell the landlord building code says it is 6 
roofs.  He can own all 6 but they are individual roofs.  Then OTARD clearly 
makes each of those roofs exclusive to each of the respective tenants.  I think 
this situation is exactly why OTARD was created.

So while I do recommend you work things out with the landlord, don’t 
inadvertently give any weight to his arguments.  You still may need to trump 
him with Federal Law.  The tenant’s security deposit might be used to “fix” the 
roof when they move out.  Ordinary wear and tear has been defined by the courts 
so many times I would expect leaving the J-arm foot on the shingles will not be 
considered extraordinary damage.  I hope you took photos of your install.

Offer to not charge the owner for increasing the value of his property with the 
availability of your service.  ;)

PC
Blaze Broadband



From: members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 
Darin Steffl
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:00 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

So the landlord owns 6 townhomes and they all share the same roof. It sounds 
like this is a common space and one not protected by OTARD if I read it right. 
If that sounds right to you guys, my next option would be to ask permission on 
behalf of the tenant to leave the equipment up since it's already there.

If they still say no, I can tell them to talk with the tenant since we were 
given permission to mount the antenna on the roof and approval on drilling hole 
for cable.

Any other ideas?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:46 PM, tim Maylone 
mailto:t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com>> 
wrote:
One reason we use nonpenetrating.
Second is a signed form providing you permission.

Otard does not protect you from property damage.


Tim Maylone - General Manager
Cherry Capital Connection believes that every home deserves High Speed 
Internet. Where you choose to live or work should not be a barrier to access. 
It is our mission to make this a reality "one customer" at a time.


 Original message 
From: alex phillips
Date:03/16/2015 4:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: memb...@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Also, since now the deed is done why not ask the land lord if they can just 
keep it.  It is ultimately their responsibility to fix all of this in the 
future so why loose the service and pay for repairs.

I think you can explain to the land lord how the work was done and the tenant 
should explain how they are going to fix it all when they leave but honestly, 
having internet there makes the place more rent-able and all my landlords say 
leave it.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Darin Steffl 
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> wrote:
Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works.

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or 

Re: [AFMUG] let's see the FCC regulate this

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I've long said that when they actually figure this out and make it work in
a small box on your desk, we'll all be out of work, as the other end will
be in a warehouse somewhere with a few million others.  Probably owned by
Google.
On Mar 16, 2015 3:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:

>
> http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-scheme-states-transmitting-physical.html
>
>
>
> Probably won’t be out before the end of the year but at least there is a
> working theory unless someone has an intergalactic interferometer in their
> garage.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <602-426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net *
>
>
>
> *It is better to walk alone, than with a crowd going the wrong direction.*
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Chuck McCown]

This is why I always had each customer sign a document stating they are the 
landlord and give permission.  If they didn’t sign it we asked them to get the 
actual landlord to sign or we would not do the install.

I think I would keep saying to talk to the tenant.  Sit back and wait for the 
lawsuit.  

From: Darin Steffl 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:56 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org ; af@afmug.com ; Principal WISPA Member List 
Subject: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Hey all, 

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 


I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. 


-- 

Darin Steffl 
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mike Hammett]

If it's four townhouses as in one large building with three vertical partitions 
for separate units... the roof over the tenant is fair game. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: "Darin Steffl"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:19:33 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 


It appears to be 4 town houses connected to each other and our tech mounted 
over the tenants unit so I would assume it would be exclusive use and not a 
shared space? 


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, That One Guy < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



I would tell the landlord that you arent doing anything just yet, and tell the 
landlord and the tenant to come to an arrangement. Discuss with the landlord 
that had you been aware it is a rental you would have contacted him, but at 
this point it is a lease issue on the part of the tenant. in the mean time find 
out for certain about OTARD. Plan for the worst (lawsuit) hope for the best 
(landlord cools down) 




On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Sean Heskett < af...@zirkel.us > wrote: 


OTARD rules cover it. 


It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the building 
including the roof. 


If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter. 


You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his property 
more rentable. 






On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl < darin.ste...@mnwifi.com > wrote: 



Hey all, 


So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord. 


The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 



I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant? 


Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. 



-- 


Darin Steffl 
Minnesota WiFi 
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi 
Like us on Facebook 







-- 




If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as 
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. 





-- 


Darin Steffl 
Minnesota WiFi 
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi 
Like us on Facebook 

Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

[Chuck McCown]

We are working on it.  Any way you can boost your usage temporarily until you 
qualify?

From: TJ Trout 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

Has anyone successfully petitioned netflix to receive a server when you don't 
meet the 5gbps requirement ? 

We have a extension of our network where we are back hauling over a gig 50 
miles away and I need to upgrade the radios once again, I know if I had this 
server It would drop our usage over the link by half...

Wonder if you can pay for one ?

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Patrick Leary]

+1

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D06015.AEE02810]





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

This is why I always had each customer sign a document stating they are the 
landlord and give permission.  If they didn’t sign it we asked them to get the 
actual landlord to sign or we would not do the install.

I think I would keep saying to talk to the tenant.  Sit back and wait for the 
lawsuit.

From: Darin Steffl
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:56 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org ; 
af@afmug.com ; Principal WISPA Member 
List
Subject: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works.

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.


--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
[Image removed by sender.] Like us on 
Facebook





This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.


 
 

This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer 
viruses.

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

In this situation (which happened several times, regardless of who signs 
what document, etc. etc.) we would go remove our equipment and fix the 
damage at our cost. It's not worth all the headaches and issues in the 
future.


Travis

On 3/16/2015 1:56 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:

Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to 
one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home 
was a rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to 
mount the dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to 
mount the dish on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a 
rental, we would have talked to the landlord.


The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and 
restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new 
shingles, the whole works.


I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be 
pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it 
there. We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. 
Do we have any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows 
us to keep things in place since we were given permission from the tenant?


Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new 
siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If 
anything, the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on 
their behalf.



--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

If you drilled holes in the roof to mount an antenna, you caused damage. 
If you drilled a hole to run the CAT5 cable into the house, you caused 
damage.


Travis


On 3/16/2015 2:01 PM, John Woodfield wrote:


Does the tenant have exclusive right to the area of the roof where you 
mounted the antenna or is it a shared area among tenants? Does the 
landlord own multiple units there or just the unit where you installed 
the antenna?


Its obviously an OTARD issue and I would tell the landlord to pound 
sand. Apparently there is some part of OTARD that states you can't 
cause damage but the burden of proof that "damage" was caused is on 
the landlord.


John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi



-Original Message-
From: "Darin Steffl" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:56pm
To: "memb...@wispa.org" , "af@afmug.com" 
, "Principal WISPA Member List" 

Subject: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to 
one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home 
was a rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to 
mount the dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to 
mount the dish on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a 
rental, we would have talked to the landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and 
restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new 
shingles, the whole works.
I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be 
pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it 
there. We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. 
Do we have any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows 
us to keep things in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new 
siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If 
anything, the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on 
their behalf.

--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

Quality internet service makes a property more rentable? Now I'm sure 
I've heard it all... LOL


Every tenant is going to request what they think is the "best" 
internet... they don't care what was there before, or what will be there 
after them. When this tenant moves out, they will call and cancel the 
service and techs will go remove the equipment. The next tenant won't 
even know what service was there before.


Travis


On 3/16/2015 2:07 PM, Sean Heskett wrote:

OTARD rules cover it.

It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the 
building including the roof.


If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the 
renter.


You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his 
property more rentable.




On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl > wrote:


Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it
out to one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware
the home was a rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission
on where to mount the dish and bring in the wire and they were
given approval to mount the dish on the roof and drill a hole for
the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes
and restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding,
new shingles, the whole works.

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't
be pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave
it there. We can't move the dish because the signal is only good
there. Do we have any sort of protection from OTARD or anything
that allows us to keep things in place since we were given
permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for
new siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If
anything, the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on
their behalf.


-- 
Darin Steffl

Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Chuck McCown]

We fixed lots of roofs, windows, bathtubs, siding etc.  But to restore roof or 
siding to original condition is a different thing. Very expensive at times.

From: Travis Johnson 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

In this situation (which happened several times, regardless of who signs what 
document, etc. etc.) we would go remove our equipment and fix the damage at our 
cost. It's not worth all the headaches and issues in the future.

Travis 


On 3/16/2015 1:56 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:

  Hey all, 

  So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

  The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 


  I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?

  Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. 


  -- 

  Darin Steffl 
  Minnesota WiFi
  www.mnwifi.com
  507-634-WiFi
   Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Mike Hammett]

I believe Cambium confirmed that on here less than a week ago. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: "Matt"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:43:54 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP 

Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency reuse? 

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Mike Hammett]

But still so fun... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:48:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP 

The clarification seems to make the pitchfork unnecessary. 




Do I have to put away my pitchfork? 

bp
 
On 3/16/2015 12:16 PM, Mathew Howard wrote: 



Excellent! I guess we won't be needing an angry mob then... 



On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 



Yes!! 






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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, John Butler < john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com 
> wrote: 





The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to enable 
GPS Sync mode of operation, but only in the PTP configuration – that is one 
“SM” connected. You will not need to purchase a license key to enable that. 




From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber 
Broadcasting) 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP 

Dude, for real, more licensing? 

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 



Software license? Auuugh. What happened to Cambium 2.0? 








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




On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi < 
sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com > wrote: 


No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync 
capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a 
software license. 

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks! 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP 


Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync? I understand that you 
don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder your 
product and our services by never enabling PTP sync. 



"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =) 






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


On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi < 
sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com > wrote: 






Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio 
(identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the 
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna 
all included) but with a software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going 
forward J ) to disable sync functionality. The radio will still track 
satellites and provide coordinates but will not allow sync. 

Thanks, 
Sriram 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM 
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP 


That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the 
exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes 
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in software, but 
Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point. 



On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt < matt.mailingli...@gmail.com > wrote: 




> It's expected, yes. 

Do they have a GPS antenna port? Not seeing one. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4 



>> 
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency 
>> reuse? 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Matt]

> That's flexible mode though... I'm assuming latency is going to be the same
> is it is with PtMP Synced mode, which I think is supposed to be about 17ms.
> But I'm assuming that's going to be reduced quite a lot when the 2.5ms frame
> size is available.

What is frame size now?

> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>>
>> The newer PTP mode is ~2ms.  Older is ~8ms I think?
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Matt  wrote:
>>>
>>> Any guess on latency when in this mode?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015, John Butler 
>>> wrote:

 The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to
 enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration – 
 that
 is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
 enable that.





 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber
 Broadcasting)
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP



 Dude, for real, more licensing?

 On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

 Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?




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



 On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
  wrote:

 No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
 capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
 software license.



 Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!



 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP



 Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
 you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
 your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.



 "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)



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



 On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
  wrote:

 Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
 (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
 Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
 chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks 
 Josh.
 I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The radio
 will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not allow 
 sync.



 Thanks,

 Sriram



 From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
 To: af
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP



 That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is
 the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
 comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
 software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
 point-to-point.



 On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
 wrote:

 > It's expected, yes.

 Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

 ePMP Force 110 - Montagem


 >>
 >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for
 >> frequency
 >> reuse?
 >








>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

So uh did no one else notice they put the Cambium logo on wrong?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Matt  wrote:

> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)]

We will get sync over power too, right?

On 3/16/2015 2:09 PM, John Butler wrote:


The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you 
to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP 
configuration – that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to 
purchase a license key to enable that.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup 
(Cyber Broadcasting)

*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Software license?  Auuugh. What happened to Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with
sync capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of
sync through a software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync? I understand
that you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why
you'd hinder your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP
sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d
radio (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110
PTP comes with the Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE
port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a
software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to
disable sync functionality. The radio will still track
satellites and provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,

Sriram

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP,
the PTP is the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does
have a GPS port (it even comes with the GPS antenna), but has
it currently has sync disabled in software, but Cambium has
stated that they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4


>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware
update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Josh Luthman]

Yup


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:05 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) <
geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:

>  We will get sync over power too, right?
>
> On 3/16/2015 2:09 PM, John Butler wrote:
>
>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you to
> enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration –
> that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
> enable that.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Dude, for real, more licensing?
>
> On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
> No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
> capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync through a
> software license.
>
>
>
> Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand that
> you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd hinder
> your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
>
>
>
> "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync =)
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi <
> sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
> (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
> Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
> chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick (Thanks
> Josh. I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
> radio will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
> allow sync.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sriram
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
>
>
>
> That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is the
> exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even
> comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
> software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable sync for
> point-to-point.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
> wrote:
>
> > It's expected, yes.
>
> Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4
>
>
> >>
> >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for frequency
> >> reuse?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)]

We'll see. I'll put my pitchfork down.. for now.

On 3/16/2015 6:07 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Yup


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:05 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) 
mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:


We will get sync over power too, right?

On 3/16/2015 2:09 PM, John Butler wrote:


The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow
you to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP
configuration – that is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to
purchase a license key to enable that.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *George
Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Software license? Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today
with sync capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow
enabling of sync through a software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I
understand that you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I
don't see why you'd hinder your product and our services by
never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable
PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the
Unsync’d radio (identified by the two Ethernet ports).
The Force 110 PTP comes with the Connectorized radio with
Sync (single GigE port and GPS chip/connectors/antenna
all included) but with a software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m
using this going forward J) to disable sync
functionality. The radio will still track satellites and
provide coordinates but will not allow sync.

Thanks,

Sriram

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a
PTP, the PTP is the exact same hardware as the synced AP
and does have a GPS port (it even comes with the GPS
antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning
to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4


>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a
firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Bill Prince]

Ah shucks.  I'd just gotten it all polished up...

bp


On 3/16/2015 12:48 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

The clarification seems to make the pitchfork unnecessary.


Do I have to put away my pitchfork?

bp


On 3/16/2015 12:16 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

Excellent! I guess we won't be needing an angry mob then...

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> 
wrote:


Yes!!


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM, John Butler
mailto:john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will
allow you to enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in
the PTP configuration – that is one “SM” connected.  You
will not need to purchase a license key to enable that.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *George Skorup
(Cyber Broadcasting)
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Dude, for real, more licensing?

On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to
Cambium 2.0?


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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold
today with sync capabilities disabled. There is a plan
to allow enabling of sync through a software license.

Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Josh Luthman
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I
understand that you don't want them used for PTMP sync,
but I don't see why you'd hinder your product and our
services by never enabling PTP sync.

"Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you
enable PTP sync =)

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

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
mailto:sriram.chaturv...@cambiumnetworks.com>> wrote:

Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses
the Unsync’d radio (identified by the two Ethernet
ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with the
Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and
GPS chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a
software tick (Thanks Josh. I’m using this going
forward J) to disable sync functionality. The radio
will still track satellites and provide coordinates
but will not allow sync.

Thanks,

Sriram

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew
Howard
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
*To:* af
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not
a PTP, the PTP is the exact same hardware as the
synced AP and does have a GPS port (it even comes
with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync
disabled in software, but Cambium has stated that
they are planning to enable sync for point-to-point.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt
mailto:matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>> wrote:

> It's expected, yes.

Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFyNKpoIHO4


>>
>> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a
firmware update for frequency
>> reuse?
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[Mathew Howard]

it's 5ms now.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Matt  wrote:

> > That's flexible mode though... I'm assuming latency is going to be the
> same
> > is it is with PtMP Synced mode, which I think is supposed to be about
> 17ms.
> > But I'm assuming that's going to be reduced quite a lot when the 2.5ms
> frame
> > size is available.
>
> What is frame size now?
>
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Josh Luthman <
> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> The newer PTP mode is ~2ms.  Older is ~8ms I think?
> >>
> >>
> >> Josh Luthman
> >> Office: 937-552-2340
> >> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >> 1100 Wayne St
> >> Suite 1337
> >> Troy, OH 45373
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Matt 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Any guess on latency when in this mode?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Monday, March 16, 2015, John Butler <
> john.but...@cambiumnetworks.com>
> >>> wrote:
> 
>  The plan is that there will be a software upgrade that will allow you
> to
>  enable GPS Sync mode of operation,  but only in the PTP configuration
> – that
>  is one “SM” connected.  You will not need to purchase a license key to
>  enable that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
> (Cyber
>  Broadcasting)
>  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 1:32 PM
>  To: af@afmug.com
>  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
> 
> 
> 
>  Dude, for real, more licensing?
> 
>  On 3/16/2015 1:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> 
>  Software license?  Auuugh.  What happened to Cambium 2.0?
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Josh Luthman
>  Office: 937-552-2340
>  Direct: 937-552-2343
>  1100 Wayne St
>  Suite 1337
>  Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> 
>  On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
>   wrote:
> 
>  No, that’s not what I said. The Force 110 PTP is sold today with sync
>  capabilities disabled. There is a plan to allow enabling of sync
> through a
>  software license.
> 
> 
> 
>  Software Tick™. Got it. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
>  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:54 PM
>  To: af@afmug.com
>  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
> 
> 
> 
>  Are you saying that the units will never do PTP sync?  I understand
> that
>  you don't want them used for PTMP sync, but I don't see why you'd
> hinder
>  your product and our services by never enabling PTP sync.
> 
> 
> 
>  "Software tick" is trademarked, you can use it if you enable PTP sync
> =)
> 
> 
> 
>  Josh Luthman
>  Office: 937-552-2340
>  Direct: 937-552-2343
>  1100 Wayne St
>  Suite 1337
>  Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> 
>  On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Sriram Chaturvedi
>   wrote:
> 
>  Correct. The video shows the Force 110 which uses the Unsync’d radio
>  (identified by the two Ethernet ports). The Force 110 PTP comes with
> the
>  Connectorized radio with Sync (single GigE port and GPS
>  chip/connectors/antenna all included) but with a software tick
> (Thanks Josh.
>  I’m using this going forward J) to disable sync functionality. The
> radio
>  will still track satellites and provide coordinates but will not
> allow sync.
> 
> 
> 
>  Thanks,
> 
>  Sriram
> 
> 
> 
>  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 12:42 PM
>  To: af
>  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP
> 
> 
> 
>  That's just a standard Force 110 in that video - not a PTP, the PTP is
>  the exact same hardware as the synced AP and does have a GPS port (it
> even
>  comes with the GPS antenna), but has it currently has sync disabled in
>  software, but Cambium has stated that they are planning to enable
> sync for
>  point-to-point.
> 
> 
> 
>  On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Matt 
>  wrote:
> 
>  > It's expected, yes.
> 
>  Do they have a GPS antenna port?  Not seeing one.
> 
>  ePMP Force 110 - Montagem
> 
> 
>  >>
>  >> Will these eventually have GPS sync with a firmware update for
>  >> frequency
>  >> reuse?
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Ken Hohhof]

Would you put in new siding and shingles?  Or leave the J-pipe foot and nicely 
caulk the hole where the cable went in?

From: Travis Johnson 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

In this situation (which happened several times, regardless of who signs what 
document, etc. etc.) we would go remove our equipment and fix the damage at our 
cost. It's not worth all the headaches and issues in the future.

Travis 


On 3/16/2015 1:56 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:

  Hey all, 

  So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

  The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 


  I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?

  Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. 


  -- 

  Darin Steffl 
  Minnesota WiFi
  www.mnwifi.com
  507-634-WiFi
   Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mathew Howard]

Bathtubs? isn't it kind of a bad idea to be installing internet service
into a bathtub in the first place?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>   We fixed lots of roofs, windows, bathtubs, siding etc.  But to restore
> roof or siding to original condition is a different thing. Very expensive
> at times.
>
>  *From:* Travis Johnson 
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:23 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
> In this situation (which happened several times, regardless of who signs
> what document, etc. etc.) we would go remove our equipment and fix the
> damage at our cost. It's not worth all the headaches and issues in the
> future.
>
> Travis
>
> On 3/16/2015 1:56 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one
> of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
> have talked to the landlord.
>
> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
> shingles, the whole works.
>
> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
> in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
>
> Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
>
>
> --
>  Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>   Like us on Facebook
> 
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Sean Heskett]

except that it's a townhouse and not a condo so the roof is an acceptable
place to mount.

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Patrick Leary 
wrote:

>  This is from the FCC website re the OTARD FAQs:
>
>
>
> "The rule does not apply to common areas that are owned by a landlord, a
> community association, or jointly by condominium or cooperative owners
> where the antenna user does not have an exclusive use area.  Such common
> areas may include the roof or exterior wall of a multiple dwelling unit.
> Therefore, restrictions on antennas installed in or on such common areas
> are enforceable."
>
>
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule
>
>
>
> *Patrick Leary*
>
> *M* 727.501.3735
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Paul Conlin
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 5:16 PM
>
> *To:* memb...@wispa.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>
>
> It doesn’t sound like a common roof to me.  If the houses are the typical
> where there are 6 houses side-to-side-to-side each would have its own
> roof.  So six roofs all connected to look like one roof.  If you look
> carefully in the attics you will see the firewalls divide to create six
> individual attics and, by extension, six individual roofs.  Tell the
> landlord building code says it is 6 roofs.  He can own all 6 but they are
> individual roofs.  Then OTARD clearly makes each of those roofs exclusive
> to each of the respective tenants.  I think this situation is exactly why
> OTARD was created.
>
>
>
> So while I do recommend you work things out with the landlord, don’t
> inadvertently give any weight to his arguments.  You still may need to
> trump him with Federal Law.  The tenant’s security deposit might be used to
> “fix” the roof when they move out.  Ordinary wear and tear has been defined
> by the courts so many times I would expect leaving the J-arm foot on the
> shingles will not be considered extraordinary damage.  I hope you took
> photos of your install.
>
>
>
> Offer to not charge the owner for increasing the value of his property
> with the availability of your service.  ;)
>
>
>
> PC
>
> Blaze Broadband
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* members-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:members-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Darin Steffl
> *Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 5:00 PM
> *To:* memb...@wispa.org; af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>
>
> So the landlord owns 6 townhomes and they all share the same roof. It
> sounds like this is a common space and one not protected by OTARD if I read
> it right. If that sounds right to you guys, my next option would be to ask
> permission on behalf of the tenant to leave the equipment up since it's
> already there.
>
>
>
> If they still say no, I can tell them to talk with the tenant since we
> were given permission to mount the antenna on the roof and approval on
> drilling hole for cable.
>
>
>
> Any other ideas?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:46 PM, tim Maylone <
> t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com> wrote:
>
> One reason we use nonpenetrating.
>
> Second is a signed form providing you permission.
>
>
>
> Otard does not protect you from property damage.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tim Maylone - General Manager
>
> Cherry Capital Connection believes that every home deserves High Speed
> Internet. Where you choose to live or work should not be a barrier to
> access. It is our mission to make this a reality "one customer" at a time.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Original message 
>
> From: alex phillips
>
> Date:03/16/2015 4:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
>
> To: memb...@wispa.org
>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>
>
> Also, since now the deed is done why not ask the land lord if they can
> just keep it.  It is ultimately their responsibility to fix all of this in
> the future so why loose the service and pay for repairs.
>
>
>
> I think you can explain to the land lord how the work was done and the
> tenant should explain how they are going to fix it all when they leave but
> honestly, having internet there makes the place more rent-able and all my
> landlords say leave it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
>
>
> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one
> of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
> have talked to the landlord.
>
>
>
> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
> shingles, the whole works.
>
>
>
> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
> pulling the mount off

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Sean Heskett]

in a lot of our coverage area we are the only provider...so yes having
quality internet makes the house more rentable

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:

>  Quality internet service makes a property more rentable? Now I'm sure
> I've heard it all... LOL
>
> Every tenant is going to request what they think is the "best" internet...
> they don't care what was there before, or what will be there after them.
> When this tenant moves out, they will call and cancel the service and techs
> will go remove the equipment. The next tenant won't even know what service
> was there before.
>
> Travis
>
>
> On 3/16/2015 2:07 PM, Sean Heskett wrote:
>
> OTARD rules cover it.
>
>  It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the
> building including the roof.
>
>  If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the
> renter.
>
>  You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his
> property more rentable.
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl  wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>>  So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to
>> one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a
>> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the
>> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish
>> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would
>> have talked to the landlord.
>>
>>  The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and
>> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new
>> shingles, the whole works.
>>
>>  I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be
>> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there.
>> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have
>> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things
>> in place since we were given permission from the tenant?
>>
>>  Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new
>> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything,
>> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf.
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>   Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Bill Prince]

Having any internet _*at all*_ makes a place rentable or even buyable in 
our area. We had people call us up and tell us they won't buy (or rent) 
unless we would guarantee internet service.


A lot of sales (and rentals) fell through when we couldn't reach some 
place in an unreachable location.


bp


On 3/16/2015 3:25 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
Quality internet service makes a property more rentable? Now I'm sure 
I've heard it all... LOL

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Ken Hohhof]

I’ve had multiple divorced dads say their kids won’t come visit them if they 
can’t play XBox Live.

And guys who want the girlfriend to come live with them in the country and find 
that Facebook and Netflix are table stakes.

And I do have some customers who buy a “rental house” near their own house, pay 
for Internet, and include it in the rent.


From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:49 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Having any internet at all makes a place rentable or even buyable in our area. 
We had people call us up and tell us they won't buy (or rent) unless we would 
guarantee internet service.

A lot of sales (and rentals) fell through when we couldn't reach some place in 
an unreachable location.


bp


On 3/16/2015 3:25 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

  Quality internet service makes a property more rentable? Now I'm sure I've 
heard it all... LOL

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

Perhaps. I would argue that if professionally installed there is no damage. 
Again, the burden of proof is on the landlord.
 
 
 
John


-Original Message-
From: "Travis Johnson" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


If you drilled holes in the roof to mount an antenna, you caused damage. If you 
drilled a hole to run the CAT5 cable into the house, you caused damage.

 Travis



On 3/16/2015 2:01 PM, John Woodfield wrote:
Does the tenant have exclusive right to the area of the roof where you mounted 
the antenna or is it a shared area among tenants? Does the landlord own 
multiple units there or just the unit where you installed the antenna?
 
Its obviously an OTARD issue and I would tell the landlord to pound sand. 
Apparently there is some part of OTARD that states you can't cause damage but 
the burden of proof that "damage" was caused is on the landlord.
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


 -Original Message-
 From: "Darin Steffl" [  ]( 
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com )
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:56pm
 To: [ "memb...@wispa.org" ]( mailto:memb...@wispa.org ) [  
]( mailto:memb...@wispa.org ), [ "af@afmug.com" ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ) [ 
 ]( mailto:af@afmug.com ), "Principal WISPA Member List" [ 
 ]( mailto:w...@wispa.org )
 Subject: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. -- 


Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
[ www.mnwifi.com ]( http://www.mnwifi.com/ )
507-634-WiFi
[  ]( http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ) [ Like us on Facebook ]( 
http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi )

Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

[Rory Conaway]

The reason for the bigger pipe is that the server is constantly updating which 
takes a boatload of bandwidth itself.  You might find that your 1Gbps circuit 
can’t handle the updates.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

We are working on it.  Any way you can boost your usage temporarily until you 
qualify?

From: TJ Trout
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:46 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect


Has anyone successfully petitioned netflix to receive a server when you don't 
meet the 5gbps requirement ?

We have a extension of our network where we are back hauling over a gig 50 
miles away and I need to upgrade the radios once again, I know if I had this 
server It would drop our usage over the link by half...

Wonder if you can pay for one ?

Re: [AFMUG] let's see the FCC regulate this

[Jason McKemie]

I think we've got a while...

On Monday, March 16, 2015, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I've long said that when they actually figure this out and make it work in
> a small box on your desk, we'll all be out of work, as the other end will
> be in a warehouse somewhere with a few million others.  Probably owned by
> Google.
> On Mar 16, 2015 3:26 PM, "Rory Conaway"  > wrote:
>
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-03-quantum-scheme-states-transmitting-physical.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably won’t be out before the end of the year but at least there is a
>> working theory unless someone has an intergalactic interferometer in their
>> garage.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>>
>> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <602-426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net
>> *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> *It is better to walk alone, than with a crowd going the wrong direction.*
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Adam Moffett]

OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on the 
house.  The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put holes in his 
property.  The FCC website on the topic spells this out pretty clearly.


I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any 
penetrations.  This is why you'll see apartment complexes with dishes 
clamped on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go in through a 
window.



OTARD rules cover it.

It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the 
building including the roof.


If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the 
renter.


You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his 
property more rentable.




On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl > wrote:


Hey all,

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it
out to one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware
the home was a rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission
on where to mount the dish and bring in the wire and they were
given approval to mount the dish on the roof and drill a hole for
the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes
and restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding,
new shingles, the whole works.

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't
be pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave
it there. We can't move the dish because the signal is only good
there. Do we have any sort of protection from OTARD or anything
that allows us to keep things in place since we were given
permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for
new siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If
anything, the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on
their behalf.


-- 
Darin Steffl

Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions have to be 
"reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of proof is on the 
landlord.
 
Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in section 2.2 i.e. 
may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or preclude reception or 
transmission of an acceptable quality signal.
 
This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the misconceptions that 
have been voiced here
 
http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/
 
John


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on the house.  The 
landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put holes in his property.  The FCC 
website on the topic spells this out pretty clearly.

 I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any 
penetrations.  This is why you'll see apartment complexes with dishes clamped 
on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go in through a window.  

OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the building 
including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his property 
more rentable.


 On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl <[ darin.ste...@mnwifi.com ]( 
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com )> wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. -- 


Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
[ www.mnwifi.com ]( http://www.mnwifi.com/ )
507-634-WiFi
[  ]( http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ) [ Like us on Facebook ]( 
http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi )

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Glen Waldrop]

Same here.

A lot of places around here won't sell because everyone calls AT&T, no DSL, 
they just walk away, buy a house in town.

Some call us, get Internet and live in the sticks, where it's nice.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Bill Prince 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


  Having any internet at all makes a place rentable or even buyable in our 
area. We had people call us up and tell us they won't buy (or rent) unless we 
would guarantee internet service.

  A lot of sales (and rentals) fell through when we couldn't reach some place 
in an unreachable location.


bp


On 3/16/2015 3:25 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:

Quality internet service makes a property more rentable? Now I'm sure I've 
heard it all... LOL

Re: [AFMUG] The world's internet exchanges

[Mike Hammett]

I'll need to get ours in there. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: "Bill Prince"  
To: "Motorola III"  
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:16:36 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] The world's internet exchanges 





http://www.internetexchangemap.com/ 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Jay Weekley]

Bathtubs?

Chuck McCown wrote:
We fixed lots of roofs, windows, bathtubs, siding etc. But to restore 
roof or siding to original condition is a different thing. Very 
expensive at times.

*From:* Travis Johnson 
*Sent:* Monday, March 16, 2015 4:23 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
In this situation (which happened several times, regardless of who 
signs what document, etc. etc.) we would go remove our equipment and 
fix the damage at our cost. It's not worth all the headaches and 
issues in the future.


Travis

On 3/16/2015 1:56 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out 
to one of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the 
home was a rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on 
where to mount the dish and bring in the wire and they were given 
approval to mount the dish on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. 
If it was a rental, we would have talked to the landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and 
restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new 
shingles, the whole works.
I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be 
pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it 
there. We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. 
Do we have any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows 
us to keep things in place since we were given permission from the 
tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for 
new siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If 
anything, the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on 
their behalf.

--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Adam Moffett]

I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA

Highlighting added by me

*Q:  If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule 
apply to me? *


*A: *The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling 
unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the 
antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna.  
"Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons 
you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents.  For 
example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, 
deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these 
areas. /_The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof_/, 
the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or 
apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common 
areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. _/For example, the rule 
would /__/*not*/__/apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through 
the exterior wall /__/of a condominium or rental unit and thus 
restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling./_




Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions have 
to be "reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of proof is 
on the landlord.


Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in section 
2.2 i.e. may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or preclude 
reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal.


This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the 
misconceptions that have been voiced here


http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/

John



-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on the 
house.  The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put holes in his 
property. The FCC website on the topic spells this out pretty clearly.


I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any 
penetrations.  This is why you'll see apartment complexes with dishes 
clamped on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go in through 
a window.


OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the
building including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to
the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service makes
his property more rentable.


On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents
it out to one of our new internet customers. We were never
made aware the home was a rental in any way. Our techs always
ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring in the
wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the
roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we
would have talked to the landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and
holes and restore everything to original condition. He wants
new siding, new shingles, the whole works.
I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We
won't be pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed
if we leave it there. We can't move the dish because the
signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of protection
from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place
since we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay
for new siding or roofing when we were given permission to
install. If anything, the tenant would be responsible since we
did the work on their behalf.
-- 
Darin Steffl

Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Adam Moffett]

On a more philosophical note:  The FCC can write whatever rules they 
want, but they were created to regulate communications, not personal 
property.  If I own a house (or a condo or rental property), I don't see 
that the FCC has any authority to tell me that I have to let somebody 
drill a hole in it.



I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA

Highlighting added by me

*Q:  If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this 
rule apply to me? *


*A: *The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling 
unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the 
antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the 
antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, 
and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other 
residents.  For example, your condominium or apartment may include a 
balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule 
applies to these areas. /_The rule does not apply to common areas, 
such as the roof_/, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls 
of a condominium or apartment building.  Restrictions on antennas 
installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's 
rule. _/For example, the rule would /__/*not*/__/apply to restrictions 
that prevent drilling through the exterior wall /__/of a condominium 
or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that 
requires such drilling./_




Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions have 
to be "reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of proof 
is on the landlord.


Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in section 
2.2 i.e. may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or preclude 
reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal.


This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the 
misconceptions that have been voiced here


http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/

John



-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on the 
house.  The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put holes in 
his property.  The FCC website on the topic spells this out pretty 
clearly.


I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any 
penetrations.  This is why you'll see apartment complexes with dishes 
clamped on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go in through 
a window.


OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of
the building including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to
the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service makes
his property more rentable.


On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents
it out to one of our new internet customers. We were never
made aware the home was a rental in any way. Our techs always
ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring in the
wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the
roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we
would have talked to the landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and
holes and restore everything to original condition. He wants
new siding, new shingles, the whole works.
I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We
won't be pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed
if we leave it there. We can't move the dish because the
signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of protection
from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place
since we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to
pay for new siding or roofing when we were given permission
to install. If anything, the tenant would be responsible
since we did the work on their behalf.
-- 
Darin Steffl

Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com 
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

So like everything else they are talking out both sides of their mouth. The 
problem becomes, how much aggravation does the landlord want to go through as 
the burden of proof undisputedly lies with them.
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here:
[ http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA ]( 
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA )

 Highlighting added by me


Q:  If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply 
to me? 
A:  The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit 
building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has 
an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna.  "Exclusive use" means 
an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and 
use to the exclusion of other residents.  For example, your condominium or 
apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, 
and the rule applies to these areas.  The rule does not apply to common areas, 
such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a 
condominium or apartment building.  Restrictions on antennas installed in these 
common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule.  For example, the rule 
would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall 
of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation 
that requires such drilling.


Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions have to be 
"reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of proof is on the 
landlord.
 
Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in section 2.2 i.e. 
may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or preclude reception or 
transmission of an acceptable quality signal.
 
This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the misconceptions that 
have been voiced here
 
[ http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/ ]( 
http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/ )
 
John


 -Original Message-
 From: "Adam Moffett" [  ]( mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com )
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
 To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com )
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on the house.  The 
landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put holes in his property.  The FCC 
website on the topic spells this out pretty clearly.

 I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any 
penetrations.  This is why you'll see apartment complexes with dishes clamped 
on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go in through a window.  

OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the building 
including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his property 
more rentable.


 On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl <[ darin.ste...@mnwifi.com ]( 
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com )> wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one of 
our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental in 
any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and bring 
in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof and 
drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and restore 
everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, the whole 
works. 

I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be pulling 
the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We can't move 
the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort of 
protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place since 
we were given permission from the tenant?
Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new siding 
or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the tenant 
would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. -- 


Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
[ www.mnwifi.com ]( http://www.mnwifi.com/ )
507-634-WiFi
[  ]( http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi ) [ Like us on Facebook ]( 
http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi )

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Chuck McCown]

Knocked out a large bottle glass block from the wall when a ladder slipped.  
The glass block punched a hole in the bottom of a fiberglass bathtub.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 5:32 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Bathtubs? isn't it kind of a bad idea to be installing internet service into a 
bathtub in the first place?

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  We fixed lots of roofs, windows, bathtubs, siding etc.  But to restore roof 
or siding to original condition is a different thing. Very expensive at times.

  From: Travis Johnson 
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 4:23 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

  In this situation (which happened several times, regardless of who signs what 
document, etc. etc.) we would go remove our equipment and fix the damage at our 
cost. It's not worth all the headaches and issues in the future.

  Travis 


  On 3/16/2015 1:56 PM, Darin Steffl wrote:

Hey all, 

So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one 
of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a rental 
in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and 
bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish on the roof 
and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would have talked to the 
landlord.

The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and 
restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new shingles, 
the whole works. 


I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be 
pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. We 
can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort 
of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep things in place 
since we were given permission from the tenant?

Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new 
siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, the 
tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. 


-- 

Darin Steffl 
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com
507-634-WiFi
 Like us on Facebook

Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

[Chuck McCown]

Netflix only updates between midnight and 6 am.  There is about 4TB to move.  
Once the box is full, then it just does new content during the off hours.  You 
do need about 1 Gbps for the traffic but you can probably handle that during 
the  off hours. 

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

The reason for the bigger pipe is that the server is constantly updating which 
takes a boatload of bandwidth itself.  You might find that your 1Gbps circuit 
can’t handle the updates.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

 

We are working on it.  Any way you can boost your usage temporarily until you 
qualify?

 

From: TJ Trout 

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:46 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

 

Has anyone successfully petitioned netflix to receive a server when you don't 
meet the 5gbps requirement ? 

We have a extension of our network where we are back hauling over a gig 50 
miles away and I need to upgrade the radios once again, I know if I had this 
server It would drop our usage over the link by half...

Wonder if you can pay for one ?

Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect

[Cassidy B. Larson]

Ours run daily from around 1 or 2am to noon local-time.  This is user 
configurable on their side.  The appliances can update at 1.3Gbps without 
service interruption and routinely do. They said that this is also 
configurable.  Note that they usually deploy these in pairs so BOTH servers can 
(and will) download at ~1.3Gbps EACH.  Just last night I saw our 10G coming 
from the exchange go from 400Mbps to just under 3Gbps for Netflix content 
updates around 3am.

> On Mar 16, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> 
> Netflix only updates between midnight and 6 am.  There is about 4TB to move.  
> Once the box is full, then it just does new content during the off hours.  
> You do need about 1 Gbps for the traffic but you can probably handle that 
> during the  off hours.
> 
> From: Rory Conaway 
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:21 PM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect
> 
> The reason for the bigger pipe is that the server is constantly updating 
> which takes a boatload of bandwidth itself.  You might find that your 1Gbps 
> circuit can’t handle the updates.
> 
> Rory
> 
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On 
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:09 PM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect
> 
> We are working on it.  Any way you can boost your usage temporarily until you 
> qualify?
> 
> From: TJ Trout 
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:46 PM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Netflix open connect
> 
> Has anyone successfully petitioned netflix to receive a server when you don't 
> meet the 5gbps requirement ?
> 
> We have a extension of our network where we are back hauling over a gig 50 
> miles away and I need to upgrade the radios once again, I know if I had this 
> server It would drop our usage over the link by half...
> 
> Wonder if you can pay for one ?
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Adam Moffett]

Maybe all governments speak from both sides of their mouth.  In this 
case I think there's a good reason for it, they say "Landlords, you 
cannot prohibit tenants from having an antenna."  They're not saying, 
"Landlords, you must let John and Adam drill holes in your house", 
because they straight up can't make a mandate like that.


If you *can* force the landlord to accept your antenna being on their 
building against their will, would you really want to?  You gain 
$30-50/month, but also make a permanent enemy.  IMO, better to just 
defuse the anger as best you can and fix the damage.


So like everything else they are talking out both sides of their 
mouth. The problem becomes, how much aggravation does the landlord 
want to go through as the burden of proof undisputedly lies with them.


John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi



-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA

Highlighting added by me

*Q:  If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this 
rule apply to me? *


*A: *The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling 
unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the 
antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the 
antenna.  "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, 
and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other 
residents.  For example, your condominium or apartment may include a 
balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule 
applies to these areas. /The rule does not apply to common areas, such 
as the roof/, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a 
condominium or apartment building.  Restrictions on antennas installed 
in these common areas are not covered by the Commission's rule. /For 
example, the rule would //*not*//apply to restrictions that prevent 
drilling through the exterior wall //of a condominium or rental unit 
and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such 
drilling./




Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions
have to be "reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of
proof is on the landlord.

Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in
section 2.2 i.e. may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or
preclude reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal.

This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the
misconceptions that have been voiced here

http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/

John



-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on
the house.  The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put
holes in his property.  The FCC website on the topic spells this
out pretty clearly.

I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any
penetrations.  This is why you'll see apartment complexes with
dishes clamped on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go
in through a window.

OTARD rules cover it.
It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of
the building including the roof.
If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk
to the renter.
You could also let him know that quality internet service
makes his property more rentable.


On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl
mailto:darin.ste...@mnwifi.com>> wrote:

Hey all,
So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who
rents it out to one of our new internet customers. We were
never made aware the home was a rental in any way. Our
techs always ask permission on where to mount the dish and
bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount
the dish on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it
was a rental, we would have talked to the landlord.
The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and
holes and restore everything to original condition. He
wants new siding, new shingles, the whole works.
I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation.
We won't be pulling the mount off the roof because it is
sealed if we leave it there. We can't move the dish
because the signal is only good there. Do we have any sort
of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to
keep things in place since we were given pe

Re: [AFMUG] SM crashes are getting really old - enough with the deadbeef already

[Rajesh Vijayakumar]

Mark,
The "public ip + telnet" will be fixed in 13.2.2. Your packet capture
pinpointed the issue, so than you for that. Open beta is now posted at
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-Beta/BETA-System-Software-13-2-2-Build-5-is-now-available/m-p/39203#U39203
.

The NAT crash will be fixed in 13.4. Expect open beta in 2 weeks time.

Rajesh Vijayakumar
Cambium Networks

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:26 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

>  Dear Cambium,
>
> Can we please get this SM issue fixed?   It's getting really old.
>
>
> System Reset Exception -- Watchdog Reset Cur ExtInt 0 Max ExtInt 0 Cur
> DecInt 0 Max DecInt 0 Cur Sync 0 Max Sync 0 Cur LED 2 Max LED 1 Cur WDOG 0
> Max WDOG 1 Cur EthXcvr 0 Max EthXcvr 1 Cur FEC 0 Max FEC 0 Cur FPGA 18 Max
> FPGA 1663 Cur FrmLoc 0 Max FrmLoc 0 Cur WatchDog 33 Max WatchDog 33
> RTMLogStats 0 AAState 0
> Software Version : CANOPY 13.2.1 SM-DES
> Board Type : P11
> Device Setting : 5.4/5.7GHz MIMO OFDM - Subscriber Module -
> 0a-00-3e-a0-4c-a7
> FPGA Version : 081514
> FPGA Features : DES, Sched;
> 03/10/2015 : 15:28:31 EDT : :Timezone set to EDT;
> 03/10/2015 : 15:32:57 EDT : :Delete Public Entry Protocol 17 Failed
> 03/10/2015 : 15:32:57 EDT : :Delete Private Entry Protocol 17 Failed
> 03/10/2015 : 15:54:39 EDT : :Tsl Free list empty. Entries 0
> 03/10/2015 : 15:54:39 EDT : :FatalError()
> 03/10/2015 : 15:54:39 EDT :
> Stack Dump information:
> Current context Task: NAPT
> Current Stack: 2%
> Max Stack: 26%
> r0:  r1: deadbeef r2: 0002 r3: 
> r4: 007930a4 r5:  r6:  r7: fffe
> r8: 00bc3380 r9: 0006 r10:  r11: 0001
> r12: 00bf1380 r13:  r14: 96904e99 r15: 08001b3c
> r16:  r17: 0236080e r18: 02360800 r19: 45acd86f
> r20: 00bc3380 r21: 02360822 r22: 02360822 r23: 
> r24: 009eb434 r25: deadbeef r26: 004f2370 r27: 009ee000
> r28:  r29: 000981e0 r30: deadbeef r31: 00029a64
> Task Stack Dump:
> 0x009edf18: 001d 000981e0 001e deadbeef
>
> Mark
>
>