Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation.
 
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



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" [  ]( mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com )
 Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm
 To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto: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 r

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Chuck McCown]

Hmmm.  Interesting point.  I wonder if this was brought up with the FCC during 
the network neutrality comment period.  If they wanted neutrality, it should 
have extended to non discrimination by landlords too.  

From: John Woodfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation.







John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi



-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna



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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
  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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
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  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 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Rory McCann]

If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final 
say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
bye-bye deposit.


I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a 
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to 
the roof and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but 
they'd either be fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would 
definitely be part of the lease agreement.


Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with 
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. 
If you handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business 
- especially if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how 
you resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about 
it and will cool off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.


Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.net

On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:


I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is 
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU 
I call BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an 
antenna for Internet I call BS. It all depends on the situation.


John Woodfield, President

Delmarva WiFi Inc.

410-870-WiFi



-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

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 manag

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[CARL PETERSON]

This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy.  This situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but if 
you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.

 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:

> If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final say. 
> If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, bye-bye 
> deposit.
> 
> I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a townhouse 
> and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof and 
> drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
> fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
> the lease agreement.
> 
> Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with honey 
> than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
> handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially 
> if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the 
> issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off 
> to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
> Rory McCann
> MKAP Technology Solutions
> Web: www.mkap.net
> On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>> I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
>> kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If 
>> the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I 
>> call BS. It all depends on the situation.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> John Woodfield, President
>> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>> 410-870-WiFi
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>> 
>> 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 impairm

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON  wrote:
> 
> 
> This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the 
> landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the tenant 
> called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
> wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or 
> Best Buy.  This situation is no different.
> 
> If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but if 
> you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
> then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
> responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
> isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.
> 
>  
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:
>> 
>> If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final 
>> say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
>> bye-bye deposit.
>> 
>> I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a townhouse 
>> and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof and 
>> drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
>> fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
>> the lease agreement.
>> 
>> Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with honey 
>> than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
>> handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - 
>> especially if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you 
>> resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and 
>> will cool off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
>> Rory McCann
>> MKAP Technology Solutions
>> Web: www.mkap.net
>>> On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>> I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
>>> kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If 
>>> the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I 
>>> call BS. It all depends on the situation.
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> John Woodfield, President
>>> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>>> 410-870-WiFi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>> 
>>> 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 ins

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Jeremy]

Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.
We are a utility now, right?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield 
wrote:

> I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON 
> wrote:
>
>
> This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the
> landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the
> tenant called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV
> on the wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the
> painter or Best Buy.  This situation is no different.
>
> If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but
> if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else
> up, then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is
> responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but
> that isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get
> involved.
>
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:
>
>  If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final
> say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case,
> bye-bye deposit.
>
> I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a townhouse
> and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof and
> drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be
> fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part
> of the lease agreement.
>
> Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with honey
> than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you
> handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business -
> especially if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you
> resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and
> will cool off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
>
> Rory McCann
> MKAP Technology Solutions
> Web: www.mkap.net
>
> On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>
> I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting
> kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If
> the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I
> call BS. It all depends on the situation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John Woodfield, President
> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
> 410-870-WiFi
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Adam Moffett"  
> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>  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.*
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Glen Waldrop]

Hmm...

There may be a silver lining...



From: Jeremy 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.  We 
are a utility now, right?  

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield  wrote:

  I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON  wrote:




This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy.  This situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but 
if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.




On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:


  If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final 
say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
bye-bye deposit.

  I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a 
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof 
and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
the lease agreement.

  Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with 
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially 
if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the 
issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to 
a more reasonable level in the next few days.

Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.netOn 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation.






John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
  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

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Adam Moffett]

That's an interesting twist.

On 3/17/2015 10:54 AM, Jeremy wrote:
Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and 
power.  We are a utility now, right?


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:


I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>>
wrote:



This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant
and the landlord and you should make this very clear to the
landlord.  If the tenant called a painter to paint the living
room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the wall etc, I highly doubt
the landlord would be going after the painter or Best Buy.  This
situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different
matter, but if you did exactly what the tenant requested and
didn’t screw anything else up, then it is an issue between the
tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is responsible for the
property and has a right to utilize the property but that isn’t
your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.


On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann mailto:rmm.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have
the final say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the
information in this case, bye-bye deposit.

I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount
something to the roof and drill holes, not only would the
antenna be coming down but they'd either be fixing it or out on
their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of the
lease agreement.

Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies
with honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to
make it right. If you handle things properly, you may actually
end up gaining business - especially if he/she has other
properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the issue. I'm
betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool
off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web:www.mkap.net  
On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in
an MDU I call BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but
not an antenna for Internet I call BS. It all depends on the
situation.

John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

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

[AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[That One Guy]

So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
with VOIP systems and still using POTS

to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the
jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1"
then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.

So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns

I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe for
disaster I dont want to be a part of.

any better resources out there?

-- 
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] level 1 telco training

[Jaime Solorza]

Pretty strong word ..mope...doesn't sound like you will be getting an apple
or teacher of the day award

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 9:13 AM, "That One Guy"  wrote:

> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
>
> to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the
> jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1"
> then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.
>
> So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
>
> I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe for
> disaster I dont want to be a part of.
>
> any better resources out there?
>
> --
> 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

[Travis Johnson]

As a previous WISP and now a landlord, I can tell you that I do not 
allow external antennas to be mounted on any of my properties without 
written approval, and one of my people there to supervise the installation.


You can claim OTARD or FCC or whatever other rules you want, but the 
landlord is king when it comes to these kind of issues. We can 
"motivate" the tenant in other ways. It's not worth having a tenant do 
thousands of dollars of damage to a property so they can have internet.


Painting an inside wall or hanging a TV is completely different than 
drilling holes in a roof or siding. At the end of the day, the landlord 
is still the property owner and has all power with that property.


Travis


On 3/17/2015 8:54 AM, Jeremy wrote:
Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and 
power.  We are a utility now, right?


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:


I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>>
wrote:



This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant
and the landlord and you should make this very clear to the
landlord.  If the tenant called a painter to paint the living
room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the wall etc, I highly doubt
the landlord would be going after the painter or Best Buy.  This
situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different
matter, but if you did exactly what the tenant requested and
didn’t screw anything else up, then it is an issue between the
tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is responsible for the
property and has a right to utilize the property but that isn’t
your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.


On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann mailto:rmm.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:


If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have
the final say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the
information in this case, bye-bye deposit.

I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount
something to the roof and drill holes, not only would the
antenna be coming down but they'd either be fixing it or out on
their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of the
lease agreement.

Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies
with honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to
make it right. If you handle things properly, you may actually
end up gaining business - especially if he/she has other
properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the issue. I'm
betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool
off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web:www.mkap.net  
On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in
an MDU I call BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but
not an antenna for Internet I call BS. It all depends on the
situation.

John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

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/o

Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[That One Guy]

sadly, it is what it is. Unmotivated techs and no accountability breeds
mopes.
I should probably alter my training style, starting the process with
"Listen here you stupid fucker.." seems to be un productive. Maybe if I
wore a fedora it would make the environment more conducive to learning?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Pretty strong word ..mope...doesn't sound like you will be getting an
> apple or teacher of the day award
>
> Jaime Solorza
> On Mar 17, 2015 9:13 AM, "That One Guy"  wrote:
>
>> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
>> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
>> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
>>
>> to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the
>> jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1"
>> then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.
>>
>> So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
>>
>> I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe
>> for disaster I dont want to be a part of.
>>
>> any better resources out there?
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>


-- 
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] level 1 telco training

[Adam Moffett]

I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.

If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me know.


On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:
So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" 
techs dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing 
PBX systems with VOIP systems and still using POTS


to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If 
the jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of 
"level 1" then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.


So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns

I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe 
for disaster I dont want to be a part of.


any better resources out there?

--
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] level 1 telco training

[Joe Falaschi]

Elevate the front line of every position.  It's hard for us to have a level 1, 
2, 3 when we only have four people total doing installs.  All of them need to 
be at a certain minimum and we need to keep increasing that minimum level of 
knowledge.  Training is easier said than done though.  Also, I know that my 
system admin doesn't really like to teach, but he has to do it one way or 
another and he really isn't that bad at it.  Opinions aside, I think we're 
going to require our "tier 1" support guys to pass a Net+ cert at a minimum, 
and possibly get into Mikrotik certs and that as well.  The same goes for our 
field techs.  Previously everything we've done was internal training but we're 
busy too.  Within reason, as the company grows, what our system admin did 5 
years ago, our front line guys need to at least be familiar with now because 
the system admin is working on much more complex stuff these days.

Joe Falaschi
e-vergent


On Mar 17, 2015, at 10:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:

> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs 
> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems 
> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
> 
> to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the jack 
> isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1" then its 
> not a "level 1" issue at that point.
> 
> So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
> 
> I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe for 
> disaster I dont want to be a part of.
> 
> any better resources out there?
> 
> -- 
> 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] level 1 telco training

[Jaime Solorza]

Urban speak...like derogatory way folks used slow ped ...

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 9:27 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

>  I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
> One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.
>
> If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me
> know.
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:
>
> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
>
>  to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the
> jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1"
> then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.
>
>  So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
>
>  I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe
> for disaster I dont want to be a part of.
>
>  any better resources out there?
>
>  --
>   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] level 1 telco training

[Ken Hohhof]

>From Steve, that’s a term of endearment.  Doesn’t he usually call them monkeys 
>or something?

I’m thinking a mope is like a roustabout.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_HLXFIRmJQ

FYI, maybe check out the tech bulletins and blog at www.sandman.com also see if 
he still sells his installation videos
http://www.sandman.com/video.html


From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:21 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

Pretty strong word ..mope...doesn't sound like you will be getting an apple or 
teacher of the day award

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 9:13 AM, "That One Guy"  wrote:

  So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs 
dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems 
with VOIP systems and still using POTS 

  to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the jack 
isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1" then its 
not a "level 1" issue at that point.

  So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns

  I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe for 
disaster I dont want to be a part of.

  any better resources out there?


  -- 

  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

[Mike Hammett]

Is the property uninhabitable without us? 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54:59 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 


Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power. We 
are a utility now, right? 


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield < john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz > 
wrote: 




I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON < cpeter...@portnetworks.com > 
wrote: 







This issue isn’t about OTARD. It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord. If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy. This situation is no different. 


If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but if 
you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord. The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved. 





On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann < rmm.li...@gmail.com > wrote: 




If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final say. 
If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, bye-bye 
deposit. 

I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a townhouse and 
a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof and drill 
holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be fixing it 
or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of the lease 
agreement. 

Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with honey than 
vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you handle 
things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially if 
he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the issue. 
I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to a more 
reasonable level in the next few days. 
Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.net 
On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote: 





I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation. 



John Woodfield, President 
Delmarva WiFi Inc. 
410-870-WiFi 


-Original Message- 
From: "Adam Moffett"  
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 



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 t

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Sean Heskett]

But what you stated Travis is a landlord/tenant relationship.

The ISP has no contractual or legal obligation to the landlord.  If your
tenant installs an antenna are you going to go after the ISP?  What legal
standing do you have with the ISP?  No, you would go after the tenant for
damages to your property that they caused.

2 cents


On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Travis Johnson  wrote:

>  As a previous WISP and now a landlord, I can tell you that I do not allow
> external antennas to be mounted on any of my properties without written
> approval, and one of my people there to supervise the installation.
>
> You can claim OTARD or FCC or whatever other rules you want, but the
> landlord is king when it comes to these kind of issues. We can "motivate"
> the tenant in other ways. It's not worth having a tenant do thousands of
> dollars of damage to a property so they can have internet.
>
> Painting an inside wall or hanging a TV is completely different than
> drilling holes in a roof or siding. At the end of the day, the landlord is
> still the property owner and has all power with that property.
>
> Travis
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 8:54 AM, Jeremy wrote:
>
> Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.
> We are a utility now, right?
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield  > wrote:
>
>>  I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>  This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and
>> the landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the
>> tenant called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV
>> on the wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the
>> painter or Best Buy.  This situation is no different.
>>
>>  If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter,
>> but if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything
>> else up, then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The
>> Tenant is responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the
>> property but that isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t
>> even get involved.
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann > > wrote:
>>
>>   If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the
>> final say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this
>> case, bye-bye deposit.
>>
>> I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a
>> townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the
>> roof and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd
>> either be fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely
>> be part of the lease agreement.
>>
>> Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with
>> honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If
>> you handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business -
>> especially if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you
>> resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and
>> will cool off to a more reasonable level in the next few days.
>>
>> Rory McCann
>> MKAP Technology Solutions
>> Web: www.mkap.net
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>
>> I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting
>> kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If
>> the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I
>> call BS. It all depends on the situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Woodfield, President
>> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>> 410-870-WiFi
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>> 
>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>
>>  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 
>> Subjec

Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[Joe Falaschi]

That's a lot more difficult to fix and I've heard you talk about it before.  No 
easy answer and sometimes people are not the best fit and it's time for new 
staff members if they truly do not fit.  Every manager has complaints about 
their staff at times.  I had no formal management training but have read pretty 
much every Patrick Lencioni book out there and I think it was helpful in 
starting to turn things around.  Since, I've read a bunch of other books as 
well.  My neighbor is a Fire Fighter / EMT for a Chicago suburb and was taking 
his Lieutenant test earlier this month and said part of the required reading 
was the book, It's Your Ship.  I haven't read it, yet, but he said it was good 
stuff.  I guess you can only do so much, but people can turn around with the 
right encouragement, engagement, and leadership.  I don't know anything about 
your specific situation but those books helped me get more out of my staff 
anyway.  As Keefe just said, we are now using Top Grading as well since Nathan 
recommended it a few shows ago.  Also Traction is good stuff as well.

Joe Falaschi
e-vergent



On Mar 17, 2015, at 10:27 AM, That One Guy wrote:

> sadly, it is what it is. Unmotivated techs and no accountability breeds 
> mopes. 
> I should probably alter my training style, starting the process with "Listen 
> here you stupid fucker.." seems to be un productive. Maybe if I wore a fedora 
> it would make the environment more conducive to learning?
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jaime Solorza  
> wrote:
> Pretty strong word ..mope...doesn't sound like you will be getting an apple 
> or teacher of the day award
> 
> Jaime Solorza
> 
> On Mar 17, 2015 9:13 AM, "That One Guy"  wrote:
> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs 
> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems 
> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
> 
> to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the jack 
> isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1" then its 
> not a "level 1" issue at that point.
> 
> So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
> 
> I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe for 
> disaster I dont want to be a part of.
> 
> any better resources out there?
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] level 1 telco training

[Keefe John]

Implement topgrading and you'll filter out anyone who's not an A 
player.  I have seen amazing results since implementing it.  Half the 
applicants won't even fill out the 5 page career history form. If 
someone is too lazy to fill out a long form to get a job...imagine how 
they'll be when they are working for you.  The 'truth serum' of making 
your applicants setup reference calls to supervisors of YOUR choosing 
also weeds out the rest of the bad people.


http://www.amazon.com/Topgrading-3rd-Edition-Turbocharges-Performance/dp/1591845262

On 3/17/2015 10:27 AM, Adam Moffett wrote:

I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.

If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me 
know.



On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:
So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" 
techs dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing 
PBX systems with VOIP systems and still using POTS


to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If 
the jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of 
"level 1" then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.


So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns

I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a 
recipe for disaster I dont want to be a part of.


any better resources out there?

--
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

[Mike Hammett]

I wouldn't be a good tenant for Travis. ;-) 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Travis Johnson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:29:39 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 

As a previous WISP and now a landlord, I can tell you that I do not allow 
external antennas to be mounted on any of my properties without written 
approval, and one of my people there to supervise the installation. 

You can claim OTARD or FCC or whatever other rules you want, but the landlord 
is king when it comes to these kind of issues. We can "motivate" the tenant in 
other ways. It's not worth having a tenant do thousands of dollars of damage to 
a property so they can have internet. 

Painting an inside wall or hanging a TV is completely different than drilling 
holes in a roof or siding. At the end of the day, the landlord is still the 
property owner and has all power with that property. 

Travis 



On 3/17/2015 8:54 AM, Jeremy wrote: 



Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power. We 
are a utility now, right? 


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield < john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz > 
wrote: 




I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON < cpeter...@portnetworks.com > 
wrote: 







This issue isn’t about OTARD. It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord. If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy. This situation is no different. 


If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but if 
you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord. The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved. 





On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann < rmm.li...@gmail.com > wrote: 




If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final say. 
If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, bye-bye 
deposit. 

I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a townhouse and 
a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof and drill 
holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be fixing it 
or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of the lease 
agreement. 

Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with honey than 
vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you handle 
things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially if 
he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the issue. 
I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to a more 
reasonable level in the next few days. 
Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.net 
On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote: 





I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation. 



John Woodfield, President 
Delmarva WiFi Inc. 
410-870-WiFi 


-Original Message- 
From: "Adam Moffett"  
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 



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 bu

Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[Mike Hammett]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mope 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:27:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training 

I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes. Are they low wage, low skill people? 
One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those. 

If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me know. 



On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote: 



So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs 
dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems 
with VOIP systems and still using POTS 


to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the jack 
isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1" then its 
not a "level 1" issue at that point. 


So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns 


I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe for 
disaster I dont want to be a part of. 


any better resources out there? 


-- 




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] ePMP Force 110 PTP

[John Butler]

The radio takes its sync source from the built-in GPS receiver or over Ethernet 
from a CMM or CMM-like device.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber 
Broadcasting)
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 6:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force 110 PTP

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 ☺) 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] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Ken Hohhof]

It would be different if your installer broke a window with the ladder or 
something.  Then you have the landlord get an estimate from his window guy for 
repairing it and as long as it’s not outrageous you pay it or send it to your 
insurance company.  But if you did a professional installation, his issue is 
with the tenant.  If the tenant wants it de-installed, do a professional 
de-install, i.e. leave the J-pipe foot on the roof and caulk the hole the cable 
went through.  If the landlord wants new shingles and siding, he should take 
that up with the tenant, or have his roofer and siding guy fix it and take it 
out of the tenant’s damage deposit.


From: Sean Heskett 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

But what you stated Travis is a landlord/tenant relationship. 

The ISP has no contractual or legal obligation to the landlord.  If your tenant 
installs an antenna are you going to go after the ISP?  What legal standing do 
you have with the ISP?  No, you would go after the tenant for damages to your 
property that they caused.

2 cents


On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Travis Johnson  wrote:

  As a previous WISP and now a landlord, I can tell you that I do not allow 
external antennas to be mounted on any of my properties without written 
approval, and one of my people there to supervise the installation.

  You can claim OTARD or FCC or whatever other rules you want, but the landlord 
is king when it comes to these kind of issues. We can "motivate" the tenant in 
other ways. It's not worth having a tenant do thousands of dollars of damage to 
a property so they can have internet.

  Painting an inside wall or hanging a TV is completely different than drilling 
holes in a roof or siding. At the end of the day, the landlord is still the 
property owner and has all power with that property.

  Travis



  On 3/17/2015 8:54 AM, Jeremy wrote:

Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.  
We are a utility now, right?  

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield 
 wrote:

  I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON 
 wrote:




This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and 
the landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the 
tenant called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on 
the wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or 
Best Buy.  This situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, 
but if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else 
up, then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.




On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann 
 wrote:


  If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the 
final say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
bye-bye deposit.

  I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a 
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof 
and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
the lease agreement.

  Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with 
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially 
if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the 
issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to 
a more reasonable level in the next few days.

Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.netOn 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is 
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call 
BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I 
call BS. It all depends on the situation.






John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


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

Re: [AFMUG] Bird bath? ETs new phone?

[Josh Luthman]

LOL!!!


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

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Saw this at new coffee shop about to open.  This WISP provider has gear in
> bank building 20 floors up.  Rainy season is a few months away...
>
> Jaime Solorza
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Ken Hohhof]

Apparently.

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:42 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Is the property uninhabitable without us?




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





From: "Jeremy" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54:59 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.  We 
are a utility now, right?  

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield  wrote:

  I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON  wrote:




This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy.  This situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but 
if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.




On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:


  If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final 
say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
bye-bye deposit.

  I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a 
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof 
and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
the lease agreement.

  Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with 
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially 
if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the 
issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to 
a more reasonable level in the next few days.

Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.netOn 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation.






John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
  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 o

Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[That One Guy]

thats actually a pretty cool set of videos, not having watched them, but
the idea

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

>   From Steve, that’s a term of endearment.  Doesn’t he usually call them
> monkeys or something?
>
> I’m thinking a mope is like a roustabout.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_HLXFIRmJQ
>
>  FYI, maybe check out the tech bulletins and blog at www.sandman.com also
> see if he still sells his installation videos
> http://www.sandman.com/video.html
>
>
>  *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:21 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training
>
>
> Pretty strong word ..mope...doesn't sound like you will be getting an
> apple or teacher of the day award
>
> Jaime Solorza
> On Mar 17, 2015 9:13 AM, "That One Guy"  wrote:
>
>> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
>> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
>> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
>>
>> to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the
>> jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1"
>> then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.
>>
>> So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
>>
>> I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe
>> for disaster I dont want to be a part of.
>>
>> any better resources out there?
>>
>> --
>>   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.
>>
>


-- 
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] level 1 telco training

[Keefe John]

maybe minion would be a better term.

On 3/17/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mope



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


*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:27:27 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.

If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me 
know.



On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:

So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level
1" techs dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing
existing PBX systems with VOIP systems and still using POTS

to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack.
If the jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the
definition of "level 1" then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.

So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns

I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a
recipe for disaster I dont want to be a part of.

any better resources out there?

-- 
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] Bird bath? ETs new phone?

[Bill Prince]

We had a sub on a nanobridge with that issue last week.  We had clamped 
the mount to a 2" OD conduit, and the whole dang conduit rotated. and 
resulted in an installation quite a lot like that.


The RSSI had dropped to about -80, but the darn thing was still online.  
5GHz no less.  Too bad I didn't take a picture.



bp


On 3/17/2015 8:52 AM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


Saw this at new coffee shop about to open.  This WISP provider has 
gear in bank building 20 floors up.  Rainy season is a few months away...


Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is 
who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they 
"assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the 
legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause 
damage to the property.


Travis


On 3/17/2015 9:41 AM, Sean Heskett wrote:

But what you stated Travis is a landlord/tenant relationship.

The ISP has no contractual or legal obligation to the landlord.  If 
your tenant installs an antenna are you going to go after the ISP?  
What legal standing do you have with the ISP?  No, you would go after 
the tenant for damages to your property that they caused.


2 cents


On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Travis Johnson > wrote:


As a previous WISP and now a landlord, I can tell you that I do
not allow external antennas to be mounted on any of my properties
without written approval, and one of my people there to supervise
the installation.

You can claim OTARD or FCC or whatever other rules you want, but
the landlord is king when it comes to these kind of issues. We can
"motivate" the tenant in other ways. It's not worth having a
tenant do thousands of dollars of damage to a property so they can
have internet.

Painting an inside wall or hanging a TV is completely different
than drilling holes in a roof or siding. At the end of the day,
the landlord is still the property owner and has all power with
that property.

Travis


On 3/17/2015 8:54 AM, Jeremy wrote:

Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water
and power.  We are a utility now, right?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield
> wrote:

I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON
>
wrote:



This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the
tenant and the landlord and you should make this very clear
to the landlord.  If the tenant called a painter to paint
the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the wall etc,
I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter
or Best Buy.  This situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a
different matter, but if you did exactly what the tenant
requested and didn’t screw anything else up, then it is an
issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the
property but that isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight
and I wouldn’t even get involved.


On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann
> wrote:


If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately
have the final say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold
the information in this case, bye-bye deposit.

I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was
renting a townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission
to mount something to the roof and drill holes, not only
would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be
fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would
definitely be part of the lease agreement.

Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more
flies with honey than vinegar so I would work with the
landlord to make it right. If you handle things properly,
you may actually end up gaining business - especially if
he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you
resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right
now about it and will cool off to a more reasonable level
in the next few days.
Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web:www.mkap.net  
On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the
landlord is getting kickbacks from the cable company for
having service in an MDU I call BS. If the landlord allows
a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call
BS. It all depends on the situation.

John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" 

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

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 m

Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[Bill Prince]

I'll have my minions call your minions.

bp


On 3/17/2015 9:08 AM, Keefe John wrote:

maybe minion would be a better term.

On 3/17/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mope



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


*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:27:27 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.

If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let 
me know.



On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:

So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level
1" techs dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing
existing PBX systems with VOIP systems and still using POTS

to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack.
If the jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the
definition of "level 1" then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.

So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns

I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a
recipe for disaster I dont want to be a part of.

any better resources out there?

-- 
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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:

I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
"assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
damage to the property.



What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
authority?


~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Glen Waldrop]

I laugh at some of my customers when they behave that way, that is until I have 
a significant storm come through and screw up my Internet...




From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Apparently.

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:42 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Is the property uninhabitable without us?




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





From: "Jeremy" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54:59 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.  We 
are a utility now, right?  

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield  wrote:

  I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON  wrote:




This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy.  This situation is no different.

If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but 
if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.




On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:


  If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final 
say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
bye-bye deposit.

  I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a 
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof 
and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
the lease agreement.

  Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with 
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially 
if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the 
issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to 
a more reasonable level in the next few days.

Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.netOn 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting 
kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If the 
landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I call BS. 
It all depends on the situation.






John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
  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 mult

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Bill Prince]

I thought they had implemented their own RF section; but I don't know.

bp


On 3/17/2015 9:19 AM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed 
rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing 
about interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear 
is 3.65ghz

   Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Bird bath? ETs new phone?

[Jaime Solorza]

This was done intentionally..  I kid you not.

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 10:10 AM, "Bill Prince"  wrote:

> We had a sub on a nanobridge with that issue last week.  We had clamped
> the mount to a 2" OD conduit, and the whole dang conduit rotated. and
> resulted in an installation quite a lot like that.
>
> The RSSI had dropped to about -80, but the darn thing was still online.
> 5GHz no less.  Too bad I didn't take a picture.
>
>
> bp
> 
>
> On 3/17/2015 8:52 AM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>
>>
>> Saw this at new coffee shop about to open.  This WISP provider has gear
>> in bank building 20 floors up.  Rainy season is a few months away...
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Ken Hohhof]

No.

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:19 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: [AFMUG] Question on interference

The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed rwo weeks 
ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about interference.  
The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
   Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65? 

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

nice :)

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:58 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


  Apparently.

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:42 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

  Is the property uninhabitable without us?




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



--

  From: "Jeremy" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 9:54:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


  Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power.  We 
are a utility now, right?  

  On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield  
wrote:

I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON  
wrote:




  This issue isn’t about OTARD.  It is an issue between the tenant and the 
landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord.  If the tenant 
called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the 
wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or Best 
Buy.  This situation is no different.

  If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but 
if you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, 
then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord.  The Tenant is 
responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that 
isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved.




  On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:


If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the 
final say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, 
bye-bye deposit.

I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a 
townhouse and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof 
and drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be 
fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of 
the lease agreement.

Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with 
honey than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you 
handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - especially 
if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you resolved the 
issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and will cool off to 
a more reasonable level in the next few days.

Rory McCann
MKAP Technology Solutions
Web: www.mkap.netOn 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

  I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is 
getting kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call 
BS. If the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I 
call BS. It all depends on the situation.






  John Woodfield, President
  Delmarva WiFi Inc.
  410-870-WiFi


  -Original Message-
  From: "Adam Moffett" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
  Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna


  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" mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com
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

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Mark Radabaugh]

On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed 
rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing 
about interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear 
is 3.65ghz

   Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?

Jaime Solorza

Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not interfere 
with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them mixed on 
have Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any 
interference.


Mark



--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what 
the tenant told you or even signed.


Travis

On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:

I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
"assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
damage to the property.



What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner 
with authority?


~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Jaime Solorza]

Succinct answer Ken

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 10:29 AM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

>   No.
>
>  *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:19 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Question on interference
>
>
> The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed rwo
> weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about
> interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
>Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?
>
> Jaime Solorza
>

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Jaime Solorza]

In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him problems.   I
was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three WISPs on same site
using Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave gear...lots of 5 GHz noise.

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:

> On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>
>>
>> The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed rwo
>> weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about
>> interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
>>Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>>
>>  Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not interfere
> with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them mixed on have
> Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any interference.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> --
> Mark Radabaugh
> Amplex
>
> m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Bird bath? ETs new phone?

[Mathew Howard]

I wonder how well a NanoBridge holds water...

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> This was done intentionally..  I kid you not.
>
> Jaime Solorza
> On Mar 17, 2015 10:10 AM, "Bill Prince"  wrote:
>
>> We had a sub on a nanobridge with that issue last week.  We had clamped
>> the mount to a 2" OD conduit, and the whole dang conduit rotated. and
>> resulted in an installation quite a lot like that.
>>
>> The RSSI had dropped to about -80, but the darn thing was still online.
>> 5GHz no less.  Too bad I didn't take a picture.
>>
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 8:52 AM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Saw this at new coffee shop about to open.  This WISP provider has gear
>>> in bank building 20 floors up.  Rainy season is a few months away...
>>>
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Bird bath? ETs new phone?

[Bill Prince]

There was actually a puddle in the bottom part of the dish (it was not 
pointed all the way up; maybe about 80°).


bp


On 3/17/2015 9:51 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:

I wonder how well a NanoBridge holds water...

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Jaime Solorza 
mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:


This was done intentionally..  I kid you not.

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 10:10 AM, "Bill Prince" mailto:part15...@gmail.com>> wrote:

We had a sub on a nanobridge with that issue last week.  We
had clamped the mount to a 2" OD conduit, and the whole dang
conduit rotated. and resulted in an installation quite a lot
like that.

The RSSI had dropped to about -80, but the darn thing was
still online.  5GHz no less.  Too bad I didn't take a picture.


bp


On 3/17/2015 8:52 AM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


Saw this at new coffee shop about to open.  This WISP
provider has gear in bank building 20 floors up.  Rainy
season is a few months away...

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Josh Luthman]

In a different band?  Can you tell them to prove it or lose it?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 17, 2015 12:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

> In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him problems.
> I was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three WISPs on same site
> using Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave gear...lots of 5 GHz noise.
>
> Jaime Solorza
> On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed rwo
>>> weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about
>>> interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
>>>Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?
>>>
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>>
>>>  Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not
>> interfere with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them
>> mixed on have Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any
>> interference.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Radabaugh
>> Amplex
>>
>> m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Mark Radabaugh]

I can't really comment on the Purewave picking up interference from 
Ubiquiti since I don't use a great deal of it.


I do know of a competitor that claimed they started having interference 
issues when we installed a 450 3.65 SM at the same location they had 
what I think was a Ubiquiti 5.7 AP at.   Perhaps it was a 3.65 Ubiquiti 
AP but the FCC registration database doesn't show them having any 3.65 
gear for miles.


Mark

On 3/17/15 12:50 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him 
problems.   I was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three 
WISPs on same site using Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave 
gear...lots of 5 GHz noise.


Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh" > wrote:


On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were
installed rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave
gear is complaing about interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is
all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
   Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?

Jaime Solorza

Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not
interfere with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have
them mixed on have Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have
not seen any interference.

Mark



-- 
Mark Radabaugh

Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021





--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Jaime Solorza]

That issue doesn't involve me.   The wisp I am helping out had his gear up
for long time.  Then Purewave Cambium guy sets up.  No issues. . New guy
sets up few weeks ago...issues.

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 10:58 AM, "Josh Luthman" 
wrote:

> In a different band?  Can you tell them to prove it or lose it?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 17, 2015 12:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza" 
> wrote:
>
>> In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him problems.
>> I was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three WISPs on same site
>> using Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave gear...lots of 5 GHz noise.
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>> On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>>>

 The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed
 rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about
 interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?

 Jaime Solorza

  Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not
>>> interfere with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them
>>> mixed on have Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any
>>> interference.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark Radabaugh
>>> Amplex
>>>
>>> m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021
>>>
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Chuck McCown]

Did you get that dragon wave system performing up to spec?

From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:11 AM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

That issue doesn't involve me.   The wisp I am helping out had his gear up for 
long time.  Then Purewave Cambium guy sets up.  No issues. . New guy sets up 
few weeks ago...issues. 

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 10:58 AM, "Josh Luthman"  wrote:

  In a different band?  Can you tell them to prove it or lose it?

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

  On Mar 17, 2015 12:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him problems.   I 
was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three WISPs on same site using 
Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave gear...lots of 5 GHz noise.  

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:

  On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed 
rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about 
interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
   Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?

Jaime Solorza


  Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not interfere 
with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them mixed on have 
Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any interference.

  Mark



  -- 
  Mark Radabaugh
  Amplex

  m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> 
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what the 
> tenant told you or even signed.
> 
> Travis
> 
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>>> damage to the property.
>> 
>> 
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>> authority?
>> 
>> ~Seth
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Josh Luthman]

It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of
his castle.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:

> I'm calling BS on this.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what
> the tenant told you or even signed.
> >
> > Travis
> >
> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
> they
> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
> >>> damage to the property.
> >>
> >>
> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
> with authority?
> >>
> >> ~Seth
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of his 
> castle.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>> I'm calling BS on this.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what 
>> > the tenant told you or even signed.
>> >
>> > Travis
>> >
>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>> >>> damage to the property.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>> >> authority?
>> >>
>> >> ~Seth
>> >

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Chuck McCown]

Irrespective or rights or laws or opinions, if property was damaged, the owner 
deserves to be made whole  if  it was without his permission and knowledge.  

From: John Woodfield 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:19 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:


  It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of his 
castle.

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

  On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:

I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what 
the tenant told you or even signed.
>
> Travis
>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>>> damage to the property.
>>
>>
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
authority?
>>
>> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Jaime Solorza]

I will tomorrow. .upgrading firnware.   Changing modulation and power to
licensed key and FCC permit..might realign one side if needed.

Jaime Solorza
On Mar 17, 2015 11:12 AM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

>   Did you get that dragon wave system performing up to spec?
>
>  *From:* Jaime Solorza 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:11 AM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference
>
>
> That issue doesn't involve me.   The wisp I am helping out had his gear up
> for long time.  Then Purewave Cambium guy sets up.  No issues. . New guy
> sets up few weeks ago...issues.
>
> Jaime Solorza
> On Mar 17, 2015 10:58 AM, "Josh Luthman" 
> wrote:
>
>> In a different band?  Can you tell them to prove it or lose it?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Mar 17, 2015 12:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him
>>> problems.   I was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three WISPs on
>>> same site using Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave gear...lots of 5 GHz
>>> noise.
>>>
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>> On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:
>>>
 On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:

>
> The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed
> rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about
> interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
>Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?
>
> Jaime Solorza
>
> Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not
 interfere with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them
 mixed on have Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any
 interference.

 Mark



 --
 Mark Radabaugh
 Amplex

 m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021 <419.837.5015%20x%201021>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Adam Moffett]

Anybody who thinks they can do whatever they want could end up 
criminally charged, whether a landlord, tenant, or an ISP.  Sorry, I 
don't believe any tenant rights apply in this scenario.


IANAL though.


On 3/17/2015 1:19 PM, John Woodfield wrote:
Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is 
such a thing as tenant rights and due process.


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman > wrote:


It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king 
of his castle.


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

On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" > wrote:


I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson mailto:t...@ida.net>> wrote:
>
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless
of what the tenant told you or even signed.
>
> Travis
>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but
the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without
permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract
from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission
to cause
>>> damage to the property.
>>
>>
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the
owner with authority?
>>
>> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mathew Howard]

Right, regardless of who is ultimately liable, you're probably going to
have to work it out with the landlord either by fixing it, or by convincing
him (or maybe a court) that it's the tenants responsibility.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>   Irrespective or rights or laws or opinions, if property was damaged,
> the owner deserves to be made whole  if  it was without his permission and
> knowledge.
>
>  *From:* John Woodfield 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 11:19 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>  Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is
> such a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>  It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of
> his castle.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>
>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what
>> the tenant told you or even signed.
>> >
>> > Travis
>> >
>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
>> they
>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>> >>> damage to the property.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
>> with authority?
>> >>
>> >> ~Seth
>> >
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their 
rights and due process.


Travis

On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is 
such a thing as tenant rights and due process.


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman > wrote:


It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king 
of his castle.


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

On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" > wrote:


I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson mailto:t...@ida.net>> wrote:
>
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless
of what the tenant told you or even signed.
>
> Travis
>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but
the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without
permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract
from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission
to cause
>>> damage to the property.
>>
>>
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the
owner with authority?
>>
>> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

[Ken Hohhof]

Ubiquiti does make some 3.65 gear so maybe double check the new guy is not 
using any of it.  If that’s the case, the Purewave guy should make sure he is 
in the upper 25 MHz where UBNT can’t go.

Another possibility is the PW guy is counting on working with really low signal 
levels like –90 dBm and he is picking up enough 5 GHz from the new guy to make 
that impossible.  Either the UBNT stuff could have high enough OOBE into 3.65, 
or the 5 GHz from the UBNT could be hot enough that the PW receiver is getting 
overloaded.  If it’s the latter, the PW guy might need some 3.65 bandpass 
filters.

Then there are less likely explanations like PIM.


From: Jaime Solorza 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:11 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Question on interference

That issue doesn't involve me.   The wisp I am helping out had his gear up for 
long time.  Then Purewave Cambium guy sets up.  No issues. . New guy sets up 
few weeks ago...issues. 

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 10:58 AM, "Josh Luthman"  wrote:

  In a different band?  Can you tell them to prove it or lose it?

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

  On Mar 17, 2015 12:50 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

In this case Purewave user claiming Ubiquiti gear causing him problems.   I 
was up there for a third WISP having issues.  Three WISPs on same site using 
Canopy  Ubiquiti Cambium and Purewave gear...lots of 5 GHz noise.  

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 17, 2015 10:37 AM, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:

  On 3/17/15 12:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:


The Nanobridges and Rockets on left off side of tower were installed 
rwo weeks ago and now the WISP with the Purewave gear is complaing about 
interference.  The Ubiquiti gear is all 5ghz and Purewave gear is 3.65ghz
   Is Purewave converting from 5ghz to 3.65?

Jaime Solorza


  Purewave 3.65 to my knowledge is native to 3.65.   It does not interfere 
with 5x gear that I have ever noticed.  The tower I have them mixed on have 
Canopy 900, 3.65 and 5.7 FSK and OFDM and have not seen any interference.

  Mark



  -- 
  Mark Radabaugh
  Amplex

  m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training

[That One Guy]

no, minions listen and do what theyre told. I assume
shouldabeenastainonthesheets is not acceptable either?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:

>  I'll have my minions call your minions.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 9:08 AM, Keefe John wrote:
>
> maybe minion would be a better term.
>
> On 3/17/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mope
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Adam Moffett"  
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:27:27 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training
>
> I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
> One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.
>
> If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me
> know.
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:
>
> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
>
>  to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If the
> jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level 1"
> then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.
>
>  So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
>
>  I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe
> for disaster I dont want to be a part of.
>
>  any better resources out there?
>
>  --
>   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.
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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] level 1 telco training

[Mathew Howard]

I think that's acceptable if you wear a fedora...

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:26 PM, That One Guy 
wrote:

> no, minions listen and do what theyre told. I assume
> shouldabeenastainonthesheets is not acceptable either?
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>>  I'll have my minions call your minions.
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 9:08 AM, Keefe John wrote:
>>
>> maybe minion would be a better term.
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mope
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Adam Moffett"  
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:27:27 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] level 1 telco training
>>
>> I'm unfamiliar with the term mopes.  Are they low wage, low skill people?
>> One smart, motivated person can probably replace 4 of those.
>>
>> If you figure out how to hire only smart, motivated people just let me
>> know.
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 11:13 AM, That One Guy wrote:
>>
>> So the boss wants me to provide training to the mopes for "level 1" techs
>> dealing with telco stuff. Primarily for when replacing existing PBX systems
>> with VOIP systems and still using POTS
>>
>>  to me, "level 1" is a mope connecting a phone to a prewired jack. If
>> the jack isnt working and you expect a mope to be the definition of "level
>> 1" then its not a "level 1" issue at that point.
>>
>>  So I provided some wikipedia articles on POTS and Punchdowns
>>
>>  I feel kind of like a dick, but it seems to me using mopes is a recipe
>> for disaster I dont want to be a part of.
>>
>>  any better resources out there?
>>
>>  --
>>   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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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

[Mike Hammett]

I think we differ on what constitutes damage. 

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no. 
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Travis Johnson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their rights 
and due process. 

Travis 


On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote: 



Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 





It sounds right to me. He owns the land and property. Owner is king of his 
castle. 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" < john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz > wrote: 


I'm calling BS on this. 

Sent from my iPhone 

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson < t...@ida.net > wrote: 
> 
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what the 
> tenant told you or even signed. 
> 
> Travis 
> 
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: 
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote: 
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is 
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they 
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the 
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause 
>>> damage to the property. 
>> 
>> 
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>> authority? 
>> 
>> ~Seth 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Chuck Macenski]

I am not a lawyer and have never played one on TV.

This is just a question.

If I hire someone to cut down a tree, I would seem to be implicitly saying
to the cutter that I have the right to ask them to cut the tree down.

If they cut the tree down but don't have permission of the owner, it would
seem that the cutter of the tree is responsible to the owner.

If the tree cutter was intentionally mislead that I had the right to cut
the tree down, seems like the tree cutter could come after me.

Does this sound right?

Chuck

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>
> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the
> structure, yes.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Travis Johnson" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their
> rights and due process.
>
> Travis
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>
> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such
> a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>   It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king
> of his castle.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>
>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what
>> the tenant told you or even signed.
>> >
>> > Travis
>> >
>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
>> they
>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>> >>> damage to the property.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
>> with authority?
>> >>
>> >> ~Seth
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Travis Johnson]

Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration 
(drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the 
property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a 
certified roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a 
hole through the siding and house is also damage.


Travis


On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I think we differ on what constitutes damage.

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes.




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


*From: *"Travis Johnson" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of 
their rights and due process.


Travis

On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There
is such a thing as tenant rights and due process.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>>
wrote:

It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner
is king of his castle.

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

On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:

I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson
mailto:t...@ida.net>> wrote:
>
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner,
regardless of what the tenant told you or even signed.
>
> Travis
>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things,
but the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without
permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed
contract from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have
permission to cause
>>> damage to the property.
>>
>>
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves
as the owner with authority?
>>
>> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Patrick Leary]

Exactly. This is one of those things where people's opinions don't mean a damn. 
Once holes were made, opinions are moot and the law kicks in because contracts 
are violated, warranties are voided, etc.

Patrick Leary
M 727.501.3735
[cid:image001.png@01D060B8.3A412060]





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration (drilling 
a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the property. Any 
warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified roofer does the 
work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the siding and house is 
also damage.

Travis

On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think we differ on what constitutes damage.

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes.


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


From: "Travis Johnson" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their rights 
and due process.

Travis
On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:

It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of his 
castle.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz>> wrote:

I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson 
> mailto:t...@ida.net>> wrote:
>
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what the 
> tenant told you or even signed.
>
> Travis
>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>>> damage to the property.
>>
>>
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>> authority?
>>
>> ~Seth
>








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

[Mike Hammett]

As I said, I think we differ. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Travis Johnson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 

Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration (drilling 
a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the property. Any 
warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified roofer does the 
work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the siding and house is 
also damage. 

Travis 



On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I think we differ on what constitutes damage. 

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no. 
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Travis Johnson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their rights 
and due process. 

Travis 


On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote: 



Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 





It sounds right to me. He owns the land and property. Owner is king of his 
castle. 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" < john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz > wrote: 


I'm calling BS on this. 

Sent from my iPhone 

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson < t...@ida.net > wrote: 
> 
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what the 
> tenant told you or even signed. 
> 
> Travis 
> 
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: 
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote: 
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is 
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they 
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the 
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause 
>>> damage to the property. 
>> 
>> 
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>> authority? 
>> 
>> ~Seth 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Brett A Mansfield]

Tell that to Comcast or century link. 

I as a landlord and a WISP owner am conflicted on this. I don't think the ISP 
should be held responsible unless they did a shady job. The renter needs to 
know the rules of the place. The ISP should always ask if they are the owner of 
the place. If the renter says they are the owner, wether they signed something 
or not, then the renter is responsible.

I disagree with you about what is damage. If it's done correctly it's not 
damage. Otherwise when they install any piping for the bathrooms or kitchen 
would be damage. 

If it's done professionally then everything is sealed and no warranty is 
voided...unless you're dealing with a shady builder. 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration 
> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the 
> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified 
> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the 
> siding and house is also damage.
> 
> Travis
> 
> 
>> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>> 
>> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
>> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
>> structure, yes.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>> From: "Travis Johnson" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>> 
>> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their 
>> rights and due process.
>> 
>> Travis
>> 
>> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
>> thing as tenant rights and due process. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of his 
>> castle.
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what 
>>> > the tenant told you or even signed.
>>> >
>>> > Travis
>>> >
>>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
>>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>>> >>> damage to the property.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>>> >> authority?
>>> >>
>>> >> ~Seth
>>> >
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mike Hammett]

or the power company or... 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Brett A Mansfield"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:49:34 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 


Tell that to Comcast or century link. 


I as a landlord and a WISP owner am conflicted on this. I don't think the ISP 
should be held responsible unless they did a shady job. The renter needs to 
know the rules of the place. The ISP should always ask if they are the owner of 
the place. If the renter says they are the owner, wether they signed something 
or not, then the renter is responsible. 


I disagree with you about what is damage. If it's done correctly it's not 
damage. Otherwise when they install any piping for the bathrooms or kitchen 
would be damage. 


If it's done professionally then everything is sealed and no warranty is 
voided...unless you're dealing with a shady builder. 

Thank you, 
Brett A Mansfield 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Travis Johnson < t...@ida.net > wrote: 




Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration (drilling 
a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the property. Any 
warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified roofer does the 
work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the siding and house is 
also damage. 

Travis 



On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I think we differ on what constitutes damage. 

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no. 
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Travis Johnson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna 

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their rights 
and due process. 

Travis 


On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote: 



Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone 

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 





It sounds right to me. He owns the land and property. Owner is king of his 
castle. 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" < john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz > wrote: 


I'm calling BS on this. 

Sent from my iPhone 

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson < t...@ida.net > wrote: 
> 
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what the 
> tenant told you or even signed. 
> 
> Travis 
> 
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: 
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote: 
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is 
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they 
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the 
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause 
>>> damage to the property. 
>> 
>> 
>> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner with 
>> authority? 
>> 
>> ~Seth 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mathew Howard]

I'm pretty any changes you make to someone else's property could be
considered damage unless it's normal wear and tear. The fact is, it's going
to cost the landlord money if he wants it put back to the original
condition, it might not be reasonable in most people opinion to put it back
to the original condition, but I see no reason he wouldn't have the right
it... who is responsible is another matter, but I don't think you can
really argue there was no damage.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> As I said, I think we differ.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Travis Johnson" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified
> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the
> siding and house is also damage.
>
> Travis
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>
> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the
> structure, yes.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Travis Johnson"  
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their
> rights and due process.
>
> Travis
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>
> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such
> a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>   It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king
> of his castle.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>
>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what
>> the tenant told you or even signed.
>> >
>> > Travis
>> >
>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
>> they
>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>> >>> damage to the property.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
>> with authority?
>> >>
>> >> ~Seth
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Ken Hohhof]

I dread when customers say “I had the roofers put your dish back up”.  I have 
seen them fasten it with roofing nails and no sealant.

I’d love to meet these roofers who “certify” a J-pipe install.


From: Patrick Leary 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Exactly. This is one of those things where people's opinions don't mean a damn. 
Once holes were made, opinions are moot and the law kicks in because contracts 
are violated, warranties are voided, etc.

 

  Patrick Leary

  M 727.501.3735 


 
   
 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 1:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

 

Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration (drilling 
a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the property. Any 
warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified roofer does the 
work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the siding and house is 
also damage.

Travis



On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

  I think we differ on what constitutes damage.

  Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
  Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes.



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

   


--

  From: "Travis Johnson" mailto:t...@ida.net
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

  Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their 
rights and due process.

  Travis

  On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such 
a thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone


On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman  
wrote:

  It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of 
his castle.

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

  On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:



  I'm calling BS on this.

  Sent from my iPhone

  > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
  >
  > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what 
the tenant told you or even signed.
  >
  > Travis
  >
  >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
  >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
  >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
  >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, 
they
  >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
  >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
  >>> damage to the property.
  >>
  >>
  >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner 
with authority?
  >>
  >> ~Seth
  >

   

   







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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/17/15 10:37, Travis Johnson wrote:

Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
(drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a
certified roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a
hole through the siding and house is also damage.



Concrete filled bucket in the yard.

~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mathew Howard]

So if as a tenant, I have a toilet professionally installed in the living
room, that wouldn't be damage?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Brett A Mansfield <
br...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:

> Tell that to Comcast or century link.
>
> I as a landlord and a WISP owner am conflicted on this. I don't think the
> ISP should be held responsible unless they did a shady job. The renter
> needs to know the rules of the place. The ISP should always ask if they are
> the owner of the place. If the renter says they are the owner, wether they
> signed something or not, then the renter is responsible.
>
> I disagree with you about what is damage. If it's done correctly it's not
> damage. Otherwise when they install any piping for the bathrooms or kitchen
> would be damage.
>
> If it's done professionally then everything is sealed and no warranty is
> voided...unless you're dealing with a shady builder.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>
> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified
> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the
> siding and house is also damage.
>
> Travis
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>
> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the
> structure, yes.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Travis Johnson"  
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their
> rights and due process.
>
> Travis
>
> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>
> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such
> a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>   It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king
> of his castle.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  wrote:
>
>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>> >
>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what
>> the tenant told you or even signed.
>> >
>> > Travis
>> >
>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
>> they
>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to cause
>> >>> damage to the property.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
>> with authority?
>> >>
>> >> ~Seth
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Harold Bledsoe]

Looks like the FCC already comments on this:

Q:  Are there restrictions that can be placed on residents of rental
property?

A:  Yes.  A restriction necessary to prevent damage to leased property may
be reasonable.  For example, tenants could be prohibited from drilling
holes through exterior walls or through the roof.  However, a restriction
designed to prevent ordinary wear and tear (e.g., marks, scratches, and
minor damage to carpets, walls and draperies) would likely not be
reasonable provided the antenna is installed wholly within the antenna
user's own exclusive use area.  In addition, rental property is subject to
the same protection and exceptions to the rule as owned property.  Thus, a
landlord may impose other types of restrictions that do not impair
installation, maintenance or use under the rule.  The landlord may also
impose restrictions necessary for safety or historic preservation.

So NPRM + a window sounds like the other options besides concrete bucket in
the yard.

By the way, I had a concrete bucket on my patio in one of my early
apartments for directv just for this reason.  :-)

-Hal

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 3/17/15 10:37, Travis Johnson wrote:
>
>> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
>> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
>> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a
>> certified roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a
>> hole through the siding and house is also damage.
>>
>
>
> Concrete filled bucket in the yard.
>
> ~Seth
>



-- 

Harold Bledsoe

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Harold Bledsoe]

Not if it is this one:

[image: Inline image 1]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> So if as a tenant, I have a toilet professionally installed in the living
> room, that wouldn't be damage?
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Brett A Mansfield <
> br...@silverlakeinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Tell that to Comcast or century link.
>>
>> I as a landlord and a WISP owner am conflicted on this. I don't think the
>> ISP should be held responsible unless they did a shady job. The renter
>> needs to know the rules of the place. The ISP should always ask if they are
>> the owner of the place. If the renter says they are the owner, wether they
>> signed something or not, then the renter is responsible.
>>
>> I disagree with you about what is damage. If it's done correctly it's not
>> damage. Otherwise when they install any piping for the bathrooms or kitchen
>> would be damage.
>>
>> If it's done professionally then everything is sealed and no warranty is
>> voided...unless you're dealing with a shady builder.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>
>> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
>> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
>> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified
>> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the
>> siding and house is also damage.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>>
>> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
>> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the
>> structure, yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Travis Johnson"  
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>
>> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their
>> rights and due process.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>
>> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is
>> such a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>   It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king
>> of his castle.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of
>>> what the tenant told you or even signed.
>>> >
>>> > Travis
>>> >
>>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
>>> they
>>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to
>>> cause
>>> >>> damage to the property.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
>>> with authority?
>>> >>
>>> >> ~Seth
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Harold Bledsoe

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Ken Hohhof]

Most owners of residential rental property worry more about the tenant using it 
as a meth lab or grow house or “party house”.

You folks must live in a very upscale neighborhood if a J-pipe foot on the roof 
and a nicely caulked up 1/4 inch hole in the siding is a huge damage problem 
requiring that roofers and siding contractors be called to install all new 
stuff.

Maybe this is why rental areas of Kansas City got passed over as Google Fiber 
fiberhoods.  Ooh, we need to drill a hole in the wall.  Oh, the humanity!


From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:55 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

I'm pretty any changes you make to someone else's property could be considered 
damage unless it's normal wear and tear. The fact is, it's going to cost the 
landlord money if he wants it put back to the original condition, it might not 
be reasonable in most people opinion to put it back to the original condition, 
but I see no reason he wouldn't have the right it... who is responsible is 
another matter, but I don't think you can really argue there was no damage.


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  As I said, I think we differ.




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



--

  From: "Travis Johnson" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

  Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration 
(drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the 
property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified 
roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the 
siding and house is also damage.

  Travis



  On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I think we differ on what constitutes damage.

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes.




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





From: "Travis Johnson" mailto:t...@ida.net
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their 
rights and due process.

Travis


On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:

  Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is 
such a thing as tenant rights and due process. 

  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman  
wrote:


It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king 
of his castle.

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

On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield"  
wrote:

  I'm calling BS on this.

  Sent from my iPhone

  > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
  >
  > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of 
what the tenant told you or even signed.
  >
  > Travis
  >
  >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
  >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
  >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the 
ISP is
  >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. 
Yes, they
  >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from 
the
  >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to 
cause
  >>> damage to the property.
  >>
  >>
  >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the 
owner with authority?
  >>
  >> ~Seth
  >

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Mathew Howard]

Don't get me wrong, if I was the landlord I certainly wouldn't consider it
a huge damage problem... I might even consider it an improvement, but I'm
not the landlord.

In my opinion, it's the tenants responsibility anyway, since we're only
doing what they hired us to do... but it's still a fight I'd want to try to
avoid.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

>   Most owners of residential rental property worry more about the tenant
> using it as a meth lab or grow house or “party house”.
>
> You folks must live in a very upscale neighborhood if a J-pipe foot on the
> roof and a nicely caulked up 1/4 inch hole in the siding is a huge damage
> problem requiring that roofers and siding contractors be called to install
> all new stuff.
>
> Maybe this is why rental areas of Kansas City got passed over as Google
> Fiber fiberhoods.  Ooh, we need to drill a hole in the wall.  Oh, the
> humanity!
>
>
>  *From:* Mathew Howard 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:55 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>  I'm pretty any changes you make to someone else's property could be
> considered damage unless it's normal wear and tear. The fact is, it's going
> to cost the landlord money if he wants it put back to the original
> condition, it might not be reasonable in most people opinion to put it back
> to the original condition, but I see no reason he wouldn't have the right
> it... who is responsible is another matter, but I don't think you can
> really argue there was no damage.
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>>  As I said, I think we differ.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>>  *From: *"Travis Johnson" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>
>> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
>> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
>> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified
>> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the
>> siding and house is also damage.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>>
>> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
>> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the
>> structure, yes.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Travis Johnson" mailto:t...@ida.net 
>>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>
>> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their
>> rights and due process.
>>
>> Travis
>>
>> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>
>> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is
>> such a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king
>> of his castle.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm calling BS on this.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of
>>> what the tenant told you or even signed.
>>> >
>>> > Travis
>>> >
>>> >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> >>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes,
>>> they
>>> >>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> >>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not have permission to
>>> cause
>>> >>> damage to the property.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you do if your tenants misrepresent themselves as the owner
>>> with authority?
>>> >>
>>> >> ~Seth
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[John Woodfield]

It seems that OTARD was intended more to deal with HOA BS than tenant rights. 
Thankfully I have never had to deal with it. Thankfully I never intend to 
become a rental tenant again. As far as the WISP is concerned, I would think 
this would be a matter to turn over to whoever underwrites their liability 
insurance and let them argue with the landlord about what constitutes damage.
 
 
John Woodfield, President
Delmarva WiFi Inc.
410-870-WiFi


-Original Message-
From: "Mathew Howard" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:16pm
To: "af" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna




Don't get me wrong, if I was the landlord I certainly wouldn't consider it a 
huge damage problem... I might even consider it an improvement, but I'm not the 
landlord.

In my opinion, it's the tenants responsibility anyway, since we're only doing 
what they hired us to do... but it's still a fight I'd want to try to avoid.


On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ken Hohhof <[ af...@kwisp.com ]( 
mailto:af...@kwisp.com )> wrote:




Most owners of residential rental property worry more about the tenant using it 
as a meth lab or grow house or “party house”.
 
You folks must live in a very upscale neighborhood if a J-pipe foot on the roof 
and a nicely caulked up 1/4 inch hole in the siding is a huge damage problem 
requiring that roofers and siding contractors be called to install all new 
stuff.
 
Maybe this is why rental areas of Kansas City got passed over as Google Fiber 
fiberhoods.  Ooh, we need to drill a hole in the wall.  Oh, the humanity!
 


 

From: [ Mathew Howard ]( mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com )
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:55 PM
To: [ af ]( mailto:af@afmug.com )
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
 

I'm pretty any changes you make to someone else's property could be considered 
damage unless it's normal wear and tear. The fact is, it's going to cost the 
landlord money if he wants it put back to the original condition, it might not 
be reasonable in most people opinion to put it back to the original condition, 
but I see no reason he wouldn't have the right it... who is responsible is 
another matter, but I don't think you can really argue there was no damage.

 
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett <[ af...@ics-il.net ]( 
mailto:af...@ics-il.net )> wrote:


As I said, I think we differ.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[ http://www.ics-il.com ]( http://www.ics-il.com )

From: "Travis Johnson" <[ t...@ida.net ]( mailto:t...@ida.net )>
To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com )
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM 


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration (drilling 
a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the property. Any 
warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified roofer does the 
work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the siding and house is 
also damage.

Travis



On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I think we differ on what constitutes damage.

Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the 
structure, yes.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[ http://www.ics-il.com ]( http://www.ics-il.com )

From: "Travis Johnson" [ mailto:t...@ida.net ]( mailto:t...@ida.net )


To: [ af@afmug.com ]( mailto:af@afmug.com )
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their rights 
and due process.

Travis


On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is such a 
thing as tenant rights and due process. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman <[ j...@imaginenetworksllc.com ]( 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com )> wrote:



It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king of his 
castle.
Josh Luthman
Office: [ 937-552-2340 ]( tel:937-552-2340 )
Direct: [ 937-552-2343 ]( tel:937-552-2343 )
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" <[ john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz ]( 
mailto:john.woodfi...@jwcn.biz )> wrote:
I'm calling BS on this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson <[ t...@ida.net ]( 
> mailto:t...@ida.net )> wrote:
>
> You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of what the 
> tenant told you or even signed.
>
> Travis
>
>> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP is
>>> who did the actual damage to the property, without permission. Yes, they
>>> "assumed" they had permission, but without a signed contract from the
>>> legal owner of the property, the ISP does not h

Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna

[Josh Luthman]

My landlords had no problem with radios on the building.  I've done it for
neighbors, too.


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

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:26 PM, John Woodfield 
wrote:

> It seems that OTARD was intended more to deal with HOA BS than tenant
> rights. Thankfully I have never had to deal with it. Thankfully I never
> intend to become a rental tenant again. As far as the WISP is concerned, I
> would think this would be a matter to turn over to whoever underwrites
> their liability insurance and let them argue with the landlord about what
> constitutes damage.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Woodfield, President
>
> Delmarva WiFi Inc.
>
> 410-870-WiFi
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:16pm
> To: "af" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>
>  Don't get me wrong, if I was the landlord I certainly wouldn't consider
> it a huge damage problem... I might even consider it an improvement, but
> I'm not the landlord.
>
> In my opinion, it's the tenants responsibility anyway, since we're only
> doing what they hired us to do... but it's still a fight I'd want to try to
> avoid.
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>>   Most owners of residential rental property worry more about the tenant
>> using it as a meth lab or grow house or “party house”.
>>
>> You folks must live in a very upscale neighborhood if a J-pipe foot on
>> the roof and a nicely caulked up 1/4 inch hole in the siding is a huge
>> damage problem requiring that roofers and siding contractors be called to
>> install all new stuff.
>>
>> Maybe this is why rental areas of Kansas City got passed over as Google
>> Fiber fiberhoods.  Ooh, we need to drill a hole in the wall.  Oh, the
>> humanity!
>>
>>
>>  *From:* Mathew Howard 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:55 PM
>> *To:* af 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>
>>  I'm pretty any changes you make to someone else's property could be
>> considered damage unless it's normal wear and tear. The fact is, it's going
>> to cost the landlord money if he wants it put back to the original
>> condition, it might not be reasonable in most people opinion to put it back
>> to the original condition, but I see no reason he wouldn't have the right
>> it... who is responsible is another matter, but I don't think you can
>> really argue there was no damage.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>>  As I said, I think we differ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Travis Johnson" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:37:38 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>>
>>> Installing a J-mount (drilling holes in a roof) and cable penetration
>>> (drilling a hole in the side of the house) is DEFINITELY damage to the
>>> property. Any warranty on the roof becomes null and void unless a certified
>>> roofer does the work and certifies the install. Drilling a hole through the
>>> siding and house is also damage.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2015 11:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we differ on what constitutes damage.
>>>
>>> Installing a J-mount and a cable penetration, no.
>>> Not sealing the above properly and water or critters intrude upon the
>>> structure, yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Travis Johnson" mailto:t...@ida.net 
>>>
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:26:21 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna
>>>
>>> Tenants do not have the right to damage my property, regardless of their
>>> rights and due process.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2015 11:19 AM, John Woodfield wrote:
>>>
>>> Many landlords with that attitude end up criminally charged. There is
>>> such a thing as tenant rights and due process.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:15 PM, Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  It sounds right to me.  He owns the land and property.  Owner is king
>>> of his castle.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> On Mar 17, 2015 1:13 PM, "John Woodfield" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I'm calling BS on this.

 Sent from my iPhone

 > On Mar 17, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Travis Johnson  wrote:
 >
 > You still have to work it out with the actual owner, regardless of
 what the tenant told you or even signed.
 >
 > Travis
 >
 >> On 3/17/2015 10:16 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
 >>> On 3/17/15 9:11, Travis Johnson wrote:
 >>> I would talk to the tenant and try and resolve things, but the ISP
 is
>

[AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Eric Muehleisen]

Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting closer to the NLOS
capabilities of the 320 because of the recent added features like 5ms
framing and MIMO-A. A side-by-side comparison would be nice.

-Eric

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Mark Radabaugh]

On 3/17/15 2:29 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting closer to the 
NLOS capabilities of the 320 because of the recent added features like 
5ms framing and MIMO-A. A side-by-side comparison would be nice.


-Eric

Yes.   And the answer is No.

Mark

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Eric Muehleisen]

So all things being equal between the two AP's, TX power, channel size,
antenna gain...the 320 still outperforms the 450 in NLOS?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> On 3/17/15 2:29 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
>
>> Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting closer to the
>> NLOS capabilities of the 320 because of the recent added features like 5ms
>> framing and MIMO-A. A side-by-side comparison would be nice.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
> Yes.   And the answer is No.
>
> Mark
>

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Mark Radabaugh]

On 3/17/15 2:29 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting closer to the 
NLOS capabilities of the 320 because of the recent added features like 
5ms framing and MIMO-A. A side-by-side comparison would be nice.


-Eric
450 3.65 works like you would expect something between 2.4 and 5.7 to 
work.   Some NLOS capabilities but nothing amazing.


320 (and all WIMAX) was in my experience unpredictable.  It would work 
in some places that seemed impossible and not work in others that 
absolutely should have been fine.   450 3.65 is more predictable - you 
can usually look at what is in the way and say 'yeah - that should work'.


I put a 450 3.65 AP up right next to a 320 AP and tried to swap all the 
customers.   Some worked, some didn't.  At this point I'm waiting for 
summer and all the trees before trying to figure out what to do about 
the customers I can't swap over.


Mark

--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Patrick Leary]

This, respectfully, is a view centered on limited experience. Discussing range 
in exclusion of product and only as a function of frequency, is, well, wrong. 
Lots of other things come in to play, from power to specs. The 320 beats the 
450 in NLOS for reasons explained by basic math, better power and sensitivity, 
for example. For the same reason, we beat both.

Second, re "WiMAX" being inconsistent, I'll bet you've never used real WiMAX 
Mark. the 320 and Purewave were BOTH proprietary spins on WiMAX. They were no 
more WiMAX than UBNT is straight Wi-Fi. There were many BreezeMAX WiMAX users 
who experienced rock solid consistency.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

On 3/17/15 2:29 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
> Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting closer to the 
> NLOS capabilities of the 320 because of the recent added features like 
> 5ms framing and MIMO-A. A side-by-side comparison would be nice.
>
> -Eric
450 3.65 works like you would expect something between 2.4 and 5.7 to 
work.   Some NLOS capabilities but nothing amazing.

320 (and all WIMAX) was in my experience unpredictable.  It would work in some 
places that seemed impossible and not work in others that 
absolutely should have been fine.   450 3.65 is more predictable - you 
can usually look at what is in the way and say 'yeah - that should work'.

I put a 450 3.65 AP up right next to a 320 AP and tried to swap all the 
customers.   Some worked, some didn't.  At this point I'm waiting for 
summer and all the trees before trying to figure out what to do about the 
customers I can't swap over.

Mark

--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021


 
 

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] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Eric Muehleisen]

Thanks Mark! I suspect you're using 13.3 code and 5ms framing?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> On 3/17/15 2:29 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
>
>> Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting closer to the
>> NLOS capabilities of the 320 because of the recent added features like 5ms
>> framing and MIMO-A. A side-by-side comparison would be nice.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
> 450 3.65 works like you would expect something between 2.4 and 5.7 to
> work.   Some NLOS capabilities but nothing amazing.
>
> 320 (and all WIMAX) was in my experience unpredictable.  It would work in
> some places that seemed impossible and not work in others that absolutely
> should have been fine.   450 3.65 is more predictable - you can usually
> look at what is in the way and say 'yeah - that should work'.
>
> I put a 450 3.65 AP up right next to a 320 AP and tried to swap all the
> customers.   Some worked, some didn't.  At this point I'm waiting for
> summer and all the trees before trying to figure out what to do about the
> customers I can't swap over.
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Mark Radabaugh
> Amplex
>
> m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Mark Radabaugh]

5ms frame is correct and a 13.4 beta build (though the 13.4 build 
doesn't change RF).


Mark

On 3/17/15 3:04 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:

Thanks Mark! I suspect you're using 13.3 code and 5ms framing?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Mark Radabaugh > wrote:


On 3/17/15 2:29 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:

Has anyone conducted this test yet? 450 might be getting
closer to the NLOS capabilities of the 320 because of the
recent added features like 5ms framing and MIMO-A. A
side-by-side comparison would be nice.

-Eric

450 3.65 works like you would expect something between 2.4 and 5.7
to work.   Some NLOS capabilities but nothing amazing.

320 (and all WIMAX) was in my experience unpredictable.  It would
work in some places that seemed impossible and not work in others
that absolutely should have been fine.   450 3.65 is more
predictable - you can usually look at what is in the way and say
'yeah - that should work'.

I put a 450 3.65 AP up right next to a 320 AP and tried to swap
all the customers.   Some worked, some didn't.  At this point I'm
waiting for summer and all the trees before trying to figure out
what to do about the customers I can't swap over.

Mark

-- 
Mark Radabaugh

Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021






--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Mark Radabaugh]

Eric asked about 320 vs 450, and I answered his question.

Not every question is a marketing opportunity for Telrad.

Mark

On 3/17/15 3:00 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:

This, respectfully, is a view centered on limited experience. Discussing range 
in exclusion of product and only as a function of frequency, is, well, wrong. 
Lots of other things come in to play, from power to specs. The 320 beats the 
450 in NLOS for reasons explained by basic math, better power and sensitivity, 
for example. For the same reason, we beat both.

Second, re "WiMAX" being inconsistent, I'll bet you've never used real WiMAX 
Mark. the 320 and Purewave were BOTH proprietary spins on WiMAX. They were no more WiMAX 
than UBNT is straight Wi-Fi. There were many BreezeMAX WiMAX users who experienced rock 
solid consistency.

Patrick Leary
  M 727.501.3735




--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021

Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Patrick Leary]

I just don't think your answer is factual Mark, unless you were exclusively 
addressing it within the context of 320 and 450, but you went broader and 
beyond. I'd have said nothing if you had left it between those two products.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

Eric asked about 320 vs 450, and I answered his question.

Not every question is a marketing opportunity for Telrad.

Mark

On 3/17/15 3:00 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
> This, respectfully, is a view centered on limited experience. Discussing 
> range in exclusion of product and only as a function of frequency, is, well, 
> wrong. Lots of other things come in to play, from power to specs. The 320 
> beats the 450 in NLOS for reasons explained by basic math, better power and 
> sensitivity, for example. For the same reason, we beat both.
>
> Second, re "WiMAX" being inconsistent, I'll bet you've never used real WiMAX 
> Mark. the 320 and Purewave were BOTH proprietary spins on WiMAX. They were no 
> more WiMAX than UBNT is straight Wi-Fi. There were many BreezeMAX WiMAX users 
> who experienced rock solid consistency.
>
> Patrick Leary
>   M 727.501.3735
>
>

--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021


 
 

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] Happy St. Patricks

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Stay away from the weather lady Jaime!

Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

> On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Jaime Solorza  wrote:
> 
> Today my name is Jamie O'Solorza as I wink me pretty green eyes at the 
> lassiesHappy St Patrick's
> 
> Jaime Solorza
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2015 12:33 PM, "Gino Villarini"  wrote:
>> Thanks for the correction! At least its green! Lol 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Gino A. Villarini
>> President
>> <9357F5E4-299C-4CA6-9CBA-6B0844740454[168].png>
>> 
>> From: Patrick Leary 
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:20 PM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Happy St. Patricks
>> 
>> Cute. Slainte!
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> P.S. - A four leaf clover is no more Irish than a chimichanga is Mexican. 
>> The Irish symbol you mean to imply is the Shamrock, which is a three-leafed 
>> plant that opens to greet the sun and closes as she sleeps.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Patrick Leary
>> 
>> M727.501.3735
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:15 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Happy St. Patricks
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Gino A. Villarini
>> 
>> President
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Adam Moffett]

No, I agree with Mark.  "It would work in some places that seemed 
impossible and not work in others that absolutely should have been fine"

Except I would expand the statement to all NLOS products, ever.

It's factual because it matches observed facts.  That's the definition 
of factual.


On 3/17/2015 3:33 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:

I just don't think your answer is factual Mark, unless you were exclusively 
addressing it within the context of 320 and 450, but you went broader and 
beyond. I'd have said nothing if you had left it between those two products.

Patrick Leary
  M 727.501.3735






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

Eric asked about 320 vs 450, and I answered his question.

Not every question is a marketing opportunity for Telrad.

Mark

On 3/17/15 3:00 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:

This, respectfully, is a view centered on limited experience. Discussing range 
in exclusion of product and only as a function of frequency, is, well, wrong. 
Lots of other things come in to play, from power to specs. The 320 beats the 
450 in NLOS for reasons explained by basic math, better power and sensitivity, 
for example. For the same reason, we beat both.

Second, re "WiMAX" being inconsistent, I'll bet you've never used real WiMAX 
Mark. the 320 and Purewave were BOTH proprietary spins on WiMAX. They were no more WiMAX 
than UBNT is straight Wi-Fi. There were many BreezeMAX WiMAX users who experienced rock 
solid consistency.

Patrick Leary
   M 727.501.3735



--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021


  
  


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] Happy St. Patricks

[Jaime Solorza]

warning...this is blatant 
do your weather girls look like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_RLrx60ok

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
wrote:

> Stay away from the weather lady Jaime!
>
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com
>
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
> Today my name is Jamie O'Solorza as I wink me pretty green eyes at the
> lassiesHappy St Patrick's
>
> Jaime Solorza
> On Mar 17, 2015 12:33 PM, "Gino Villarini"  wrote:
>
>>   Thanks for the correction! At least its green! Lol
>>
>>
>>
>>  Gino A. Villarini
>> President
>> <9357F5E4-299C-4CA6-9CBA-6B0844740454[168].png>
>>
>>   From: Patrick Leary 
>> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 2:20 PM
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Happy St. Patricks
>>
>>   Cute. Slainte!
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S. - A four leaf clover is no more Irish than a chimichanga is Mexican.
>> The Irish symbol you mean to imply is the Shamrock, which is a three-leafed
>> plant that opens to greet the sun and closes as she sleeps.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Patrick Leary*
>>
>> *M*727.501.3735
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Gino Villarini
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:15 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Happy St. Patricks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gino A. Villarini
>>
>> President
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Adam Moffett]

Of course, you can come on down and prove me wrong if you want to. If 
you do I'll deliver a hand written apology for my doubting.


On 3/17/2015 4:15 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
No, I agree with Mark.  "It would work in some places that seemed 
impossible and not work in others that absolutely should have been fine"

Except I would expand the statement to all NLOS products, ever.

It's factual because it matches observed facts.  That's the definition 
of factual.


On 3/17/2015 3:33 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
I just don't think your answer is factual Mark, unless you were 
exclusively addressing it within the context of 320 and 450, but you 
went broader and beyond. I'd have said nothing if you had left it 
between those two products.


Patrick Leary
  M 727.501.3735






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

Eric asked about 320 vs 450, and I answered his question.

Not every question is a marketing opportunity for Telrad.

Mark

On 3/17/15 3:00 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
This, respectfully, is a view centered on limited experience. 
Discussing range in exclusion of product and only as a function of 
frequency, is, well, wrong. Lots of other things come in to play, 
from power to specs. The 320 beats the 450 in NLOS for reasons 
explained by basic math, better power and sensitivity, for example. 
For the same reason, we beat both.


Second, re "WiMAX" being inconsistent, I'll bet you've never used 
real WiMAX Mark. the 320 and Purewave were BOTH proprietary spins on 
WiMAX. They were no more WiMAX than UBNT is straight Wi-Fi. There 
were many BreezeMAX WiMAX users who experienced rock solid consistency.


Patrick Leary
   M 727.501.3735



--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex

m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021



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] PMP320 vs. PMP450

[Patrick Leary]

I did not dispute that part Adam. In case you did not notice, I was pretty 
specific about that which I did dispute.

Patrick Leary
 M 727.501.3735 






-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 4:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450

Of course, you can come on down and prove me wrong if you want to. If you do 
I'll deliver a hand written apology for my doubting.

On 3/17/2015 4:15 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> No, I agree with Mark.  "It would work in some places that seemed 
> impossible and not work in others that absolutely should have been fine"
> Except I would expand the statement to all NLOS products, ever.
>
> It's factual because it matches observed facts.  That's the definition 
> of factual.
>
> On 3/17/2015 3:33 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
>> I just don't think your answer is factual Mark, unless you were 
>> exclusively addressing it within the context of 320 and 450, but you 
>> went broader and beyond. I'd have said nothing if you had left it 
>> between those two products.
>>
>> Patrick Leary
>>   M 727.501.3735
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 3:13 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PMP320 vs. PMP450
>>
>> Eric asked about 320 vs 450, and I answered his question.
>>
>> Not every question is a marketing opportunity for Telrad.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On 3/17/15 3:00 PM, Patrick Leary wrote:
>>> This, respectfully, is a view centered on limited experience. 
>>> Discussing range in exclusion of product and only as a function of 
>>> frequency, is, well, wrong. Lots of other things come in to play, 
>>> from power to specs. The 320 beats the 450 in NLOS for reasons 
>>> explained by basic math, better power and sensitivity, for example.
>>> For the same reason, we beat both.
>>>
>>> Second, re "WiMAX" being inconsistent, I'll bet you've never used 
>>> real WiMAX Mark. the 320 and Purewave were BOTH proprietary spins on 
>>> WiMAX. They were no more WiMAX than UBNT is straight Wi-Fi. There 
>>> were many BreezeMAX WiMAX users who experienced rock solid consistency.
>>>
>>> Patrick Leary
>>>M 727.501.3735
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Mark Radabaugh
>> Amplex
>>
>> m...@amplex.net  419.837.5015 x 1021
>>
>>
>> *
>> *** 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.
>> *
>> ***
>>
>>
>


 
 

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.

[AFMUG] More ePMP gripes

[George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)]

The damn SM bridge table still doesn't work on v2.4.

I cannot save my GUI login info. This is very annoying.

You need to figure out a way for the AP date/time to be propagated down 
to the SMs like Canopy.


I need AP>SM GUI proxy like Canopy. Needed it today, didn't have it.

The GUI is beautiful, but is still slow. At least the traffic graph is 
fixed.


It's OK, you can hate me. Most people do.

Re: [AFMUG] More ePMP gripes

[Josh Luthman]

Until they get the AP/SM proxy, you can always do a static ARP to
169.254.1.1 and NAT.


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

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:25 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) <
geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:

> The damn SM bridge table still doesn't work on v2.4.
>
> I cannot save my GUI login info. This is very annoying.
>
> You need to figure out a way for the AP date/time to be propagated down to
> the SMs like Canopy.
>
> I need AP>SM GUI proxy like Canopy. Needed it today, didn't have it.
>
> The GUI is beautiful, but is still slow. At least the traffic graph is
> fixed.
>
> It's OK, you can hate me. Most people do.
>

Re: [AFMUG] More ePMP gripes

[Nate Burke]

I'm feeling your pain.  Trying to get Radios configured for the guys 
tomorrow.  Taking almost 20 min per radio to configure by the time you 
upgrade the firmware and WAIT FOR THE BLASTED WEB PAGES TO FINISH 
LOADING


Oh, and the fact that you can't highlight a field (like the IP Address) 
and start typing to overwrite it.  It just decides that you didn't 
really mean to highlight it, and appends what you entered before the 
existing string.  Then complains that it's not a valid IP Address.



On 3/17/2015 4:25 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) wrote:

The damn SM bridge table still doesn't work on v2.4.

I cannot save my GUI login info. This is very annoying.

You need to figure out a way for the AP date/time to be propagated 
down to the SMs like Canopy.


I need AP>SM GUI proxy like Canopy. Needed it today, didn't have it.

The GUI is beautiful, but is still slow. At least the traffic graph is 
fixed.


It's OK, you can hate me. Most people do.

[AFMUG] info from customer - Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

so.KUDOS to the cambium team.  we've rolled epmp 2.4 on two of our most 
populated towers and now that the weather is better, we're upgrading folks who 
have been on a list.

"MIKE MIKE MIKE" is "HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY".

Of course, we went with the 2.4 EPMP for a few goals:

1)  good reviews from other WISPS
2)  the ability to sync
3)  we thought it might be a good platform to move customers that are 1-2 miles 
out on from the 900 mhz PMP100 platform

see below

oh, prince of broadband.that's our highest package.  as much data as the 
radio can move and uncapped.  "Dave" said the customer was getting 25 meg down 
- an upgrade from the 3 meg he's been getting.  This is not a cheap package.




- Original Message - 
From: Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
Cc: Cyber Broadband Inc. 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!



good dealunderstand it's all still in beta but hopefully it'll just get 
better.
assuming you have a wireless router, what channel is it on?
the new radio uses 2.4 ghz which most wireless routers use.
have to watch that closely.

  - Original Message - 
  To: CBB ; Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:30 PM
  Subject: Re: Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!


  I had Dave over this afternoon upgrading my service. He did an outstanding 
job and honestly, I can't be more impressed with the improved performance! I'm 
now the "Prince of Broadband" and I'm loving it!!!

  Thanks Guys. 

  Regards 
  Mike 

  On Thu Mar 12 15:11 , "Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc" sent:




tried to work you in this afternoon but had a repair to do... :(

  - Original Message - 
  To: Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
  Cc: Cyber Broadband Inc. 
  Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:41 PM
  Subject: Re: Upgrade to service


  I want to thank all for coming to my aid here. I've been your customer 
for almost 10 years now and you guys have always been there for me. I'm really 
looking forward to this upgrade and so is my new employer -BroadSoft! 


  Kind Regards, Mike 
  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 10, 2015, at 19:50, Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
 wrote:



office, please schedule this for dave one day next week.
Mike, you need to let us know when you are available.
I think last time we queried you you were out of town.
Thanks.

  - Original Message - 
  To: Inc Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 2:28 PM
  Subject: Upgrade to service


  Hi Jay, tell me, what's the delay in upgrading my service? You've  
been kicking this can down the road since before Christmas, now it's Spring 
time and still nothing! 

  Regards, Mike 
  Sent from my iPhone=

  =

Re: [AFMUG] More ePMP gripes

[Josh Luthman]

Oh that automatic highlight changing stuff...makes me want to drop kick
puppies...


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

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> I'm feeling your pain.  Trying to get Radios configured for the guys
> tomorrow.  Taking almost 20 min per radio to configure by the time you
> upgrade the firmware and WAIT FOR THE BLASTED WEB PAGES TO FINISH
> LOADING
>
> Oh, and the fact that you can't highlight a field (like the IP Address)
> and start typing to overwrite it.  It just decides that you didn't really
> mean to highlight it, and appends what you entered before the existing
> string.  Then complains that it's not a valid IP Address.
>
>
>
> On 3/17/2015 4:25 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) wrote:
>
>> The damn SM bridge table still doesn't work on v2.4.
>>
>> I cannot save my GUI login info. This is very annoying.
>>
>> You need to figure out a way for the AP date/time to be propagated down
>> to the SMs like Canopy.
>>
>> I need AP>SM GUI proxy like Canopy. Needed it today, didn't have it.
>>
>> The GUI is beautiful, but is still slow. At least the traffic graph is
>> fixed.
>>
>> It's OK, you can hate me. Most people do.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] info from customer - Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!

[Josh Luthman]

Employed by the Broadsoft?  Those phone guys that bought out the pretty
Tekelec only to chew it up and leave it in the litter box? =(


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

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller  wrote:

>
> so.KUDOS to the cambium team.  we've rolled epmp 2.4 on two of our
> most populated towers and now that the weather is better, we're upgrading
> folks who have been on a list.
>
> "MIKE MIKE MIKE" is "HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY".
>
> Of course, we went with the 2.4 EPMP for a few goals:
>
> 1)  good reviews from other WISPS
> 2)  the ability to sync
> 3)  we thought it might be a good platform to move customers that are 1-2
> miles out on from the 900 mhz PMP100 platform
>
> see below
>
> oh, prince of broadband.that's our highest package.  as much data as
> the radio can move and uncapped.  "Dave" said the customer was getting 25
> meg down - an upgrade from the 3 meg he's been getting.  This is not a
> cheap package.
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
> *Cc:* Cyber Broadband Inc. 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:35 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!
>
>
> good dealunderstand it's all still in beta but hopefully it'll just
> get better.
> assuming you have a wireless router, what channel is it on?
> the new radio uses 2.4 ghz which most wireless routers use.
> have to watch that closely.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *To:* CBB  ; Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc
> 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!
>
> I had Dave over this afternoon upgrading my service. He did an outstanding
> job and honestly, I can't be more impressed with the improved performance!
> I'm now the "Prince of Broadband" and I'm loving it!!!
>
> Thanks Guys.
>
> Regards
> Mike
>
> On Thu Mar 12 15:11 , "Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc" sent:
>
>
> tried to work you in this afternoon but had a repair to do... :(
>
>
> - Original Message -
> To: Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc
> Cc: Cyber Broadband Inc.
> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Upgrade to service
>
> I want to thank all for coming to my aid here. I've been your customer for
> almost 10 years now and you guys have always been there for me. I'm really
> looking forward to this upgrade and so is my new employer -BroadSoft!
>
> Kind Regards, Mike
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 10, 2015, at 19:50, Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc <
> jayful...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:
>
>
> office, please schedule this for dave one day next week.
> Mike, you need to let us know when you are available.
> I think last time we queried you you were out of town.
> Thanks.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> To: Inc Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband
> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 2:28 PM
> Subject: Upgrade to service
>
> Hi Jay, tell me, what's the delay in upgrading my service? You've  been
> kicking this can down the road since before Christmas, now it's Spring time
> and still nothing!
>
> Regards, Mike
> Sent from my iPhone=
>
>
> =
>
>
> ___
> Members mailing list
> memb...@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] More ePMP gripes

[Vince West]

I don't have too much trouble with the web pages. However, I only view them
on my desktop. Rarely do I use a laptop, if that makes any difference. The
upgrade time for the firmware is indeed a pain. And I can sympathize with
the inability to highlight the fields and start typing. It gets me every
time.

We do a rather bare bones config on the radios though. I am also not a fan
of one user logged in at a time. It makes troubleshooting with another tech
across the office inconvenient as one of us has to move from our desk. I
know that sounds lazy, but it's much easier to answer the question over the
phone than having to get up every time a tech has a question.

Vince West
Tower Hand
Technical Support
Shelby Broadband
148 Citizens Blvd
Simpsonville, KY 40067
Phone: 1-888-364-4232

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Nate Burke  wrote:

> I'm feeling your pain.  Trying to get Radios configured for the guys
> tomorrow.  Taking almost 20 min per radio to configure by the time you
> upgrade the firmware and WAIT FOR THE BLASTED WEB PAGES TO FINISH
> LOADING
>
> Oh, and the fact that you can't highlight a field (like the IP Address)
> and start typing to overwrite it.  It just decides that you didn't really
> mean to highlight it, and appends what you entered before the existing
> string.  Then complains that it's not a valid IP Address.

Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] info from customer - Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

i didn't offer him the job lol

  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Luthman 
  To: memb...@wispa.org 
  Cc: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA Members] info from customer - Upgrade to service - 
Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!


  Employed by the Broadsoft?  Those phone guys that bought out the pretty 
Tekelec only to chew it up and leave it in the litter box? =(




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


  On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:45 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller  
wrote:


so.KUDOS to the cambium team.  we've rolled epmp 2.4 on two of our most 
populated towers and now that the weather is better, we're upgrading folks who 
have been on a list.

"MIKE MIKE MIKE" is "HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY".

Of course, we went with the 2.4 EPMP for a few goals:

1)  good reviews from other WISPS
2)  the ability to sync
3)  we thought it might be a good platform to move customers that are 1-2 
miles out on from the 900 mhz PMP100 platform

see below

oh, prince of broadband.that's our highest package.  as much data as 
the radio can move and uncapped.  "Dave" said the customer was getting 25 meg 
down - an upgrade from the 3 meg he's been getting.  This is not a cheap 
package.




- Original Message - 
From: Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
Cc: Cyber Broadband Inc. 
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!



good dealunderstand it's all still in beta but hopefully it'll just get 
better.
assuming you have a wireless router, what channel is it on?
the new radio uses 2.4 ghz which most wireless routers use.
have to watch that closely.

  - Original Message - 
  To: CBB ; Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:30 PM
  Subject: Re: Upgrade to service - Customer #8 is HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!


  I had Dave over this afternoon upgrading my service. He did an 
outstanding job and honestly, I can't be more impressed with the improved 
performance! I'm now the "Prince of Broadband" and I'm loving it!!!

  Thanks Guys. 

  Regards 
  Mike 

  On Thu Mar 12 15:11 , "Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc" sent:




tried to work you in this afternoon but had a repair to do... :(

  - Original Message - 
  To: Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
  Cc: Cyber Broadband Inc. 
  Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:41 PM
  Subject: Re: Upgrade to service


  I want to thank all for coming to my aid here. I've been your 
customer for almost 10 years now and you guys have always been there for me. 
I'm really looking forward to this upgrade and so is my new employer 
-BroadSoft! 


  Kind Regards, Mike 
  Sent from my iPhone

  On Mar 10, 2015, at 19:50, Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband Inc 
 wrote:



office, please schedule this for dave one day next week.
Mike, you need to let us know when you are available.
I think last time we queried you you were out of town.
Thanks.

  - Original Message - 
  To: Inc Jay Fuller - Cyber Broadband 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 2:28 PM
  Subject: Upgrade to service


  Hi Jay, tell me, what's the delay in upgrading my service? You've 
 been kicking this can down the road since before Christmas, now it's Spring 
time and still nothing! 

  Regards, Mike 
  Sent from my iPhone=

  =

___
Members mailing list
memb...@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members






--


  ___
  Members mailing list
  memb...@wispa.org
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/members

[AFMUG] ePMP 2 GHz deployments

[Josh Luthman]

I'm curious to know what everyone is using for 2 GHz sectors.  Primarily
linear vs slant but also OEM vs aftermarket sectors.

PS.  I heard through the grapevines that the (integrated) CPEs can do slant
and linear.  Is this true?  Is there no loss in signal regardless of your
AP/Sector being 90*/45*?  If the patch antenna can do both, doesn't that
mean it isn't focusing on one or the other and had to compromise?

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

Re: [AFMUG] More ePMP gripes

[George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting)]

Oh, and viewing the Monitor > Wireless AP page on a small screen like my 
laptop. Scroll over, it auto-refreshes and scrolls itself back. A!


On 3/17/2015 5:28 PM, Nate Burke wrote:
I'm feeling your pain.  Trying to get Radios configured for the guys 
tomorrow.  Taking almost 20 min per radio to configure by the time you 
upgrade the firmware and WAIT FOR THE BLASTED WEB PAGES TO FINISH 
LOADING


Oh, and the fact that you can't highlight a field (like the IP 
Address) and start typing to overwrite it.  It just decides that you 
didn't really mean to highlight it, and appends what you entered 
before the existing string.  Then complains that it's not a valid IP 
Address.



On 3/17/2015 4:25 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) wrote:

The damn SM bridge table still doesn't work on v2.4.

I cannot save my GUI login info. This is very annoying.

You need to figure out a way for the AP date/time to be propagated 
down to the SMs like Canopy.


I need AP>SM GUI proxy like Canopy. Needed it today, didn't have it.

The GUI is beautiful, but is still slow. At least the traffic graph 
is fixed.


It's OK, you can hate me. Most people do.

[AFMUG] Microsoft sends Internet Explorer to tech's scrapheap

[Jaime Solorza]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/17/microsoft-internet-explorer-project-spartan/24909091/

Jaime Solorza