date:20151007

Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common ground?

From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48 

this is the setup:

Emerson Rectifier feeding:

Telco System MPLS router
Planet Fiber SW
2 Netonix DC Switches 
2 SAF POE Injectors
2 PTP600 PIDUs

AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground

We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450

all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF SS on 
the rack

So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the PTP600 
PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the Netonix 
blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..

im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

Have you tried isolating the PTP600 with a DC/DC converter (Meanwell RSD,
etc) in between the rectifier and PIDU?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Gino Villarini  wrote:

> ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate the issue
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating
>> surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?
>>
>> *From:* Gino Villarini 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
>> Help!!
>>
>> i think so, afaik is floating ground
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common ground?
>>>
>>> *From:* Gino Villarini 
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!
>>>
>>> So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
>>>
>>> this is the setup:
>>>
>>> Emerson Rectifier feeding:
>>>
>>> Telco System MPLS router
>>> Planet Fiber SW
>>> 2 Netonix DC Switches
>>> 2 SAF POE Injectors
>>> 2 PTP600 PIDUs
>>>
>>> AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground
>>>
>>> We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
>>>
>>> all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF
>>> SS on the rack
>>>
>>> So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the
>>> PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the
>>> Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..
>>>
>>> im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

2015-10-07 Thread David

We have to use the duracom dc dc isolators for them but no issues once 
we do it.

Basically same thing using meanwell product.

On 10/07/2015 03:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

no, will try-

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Baird > wrote:

Have you tried isolating the PTP600 with a DC/DC converter
(Meanwell RSD, etc) in between the rectifier and PIDU?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Gino Villarini
> wrote:

ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate
the issue

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown > wrote:

If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other
insulating surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or
chassis?
*From:* Gino Villarini 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground
loop? Please Help!!
i think so, afaik is floating ground
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown
> wrote:

Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to
your common ground?
*From:* Gino Villarini 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground
loop? Please Help!!
So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
this is the setup:
Emerson Rectifier feeding:
Telco System MPLS router
Planet Fiber SW
2 Netonix DC Switches
2 SAF POE Injectors
2 PTP600 PIDUs
AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground
We have this gear connected to the Netonix:
Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is
terminated in a WBMGF SS on the rack
So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC,
when we connect the PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the
fuse on the emerson output feeding the Netonix
blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..
im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Totally true. Apple makes an AirPort tool of sorts for Windows, but it 
sucks major bronto.


What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad.

bp


On 10/7/2015 11:21 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
My guys hate the Apple routers because they can’t be configured from a 
web GUI, you need the AirPort software on your computer.  At least 
that’s what they tell me.

*From:* Brett A Mansfield 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:08 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
For my customers that want me to sell them or manage their solution I 
charge an extra $25 install fee and $5/mo. I use edgerouters as the 
router and an airport express in bridge mode for the wireless. I can 
throw on as many of the airports as needed to get the job done for an 
extra fee.
It works really well. I haven't had any customer complaint with it. 
They don't have to power cycle anything ever either.
I buy the airport express in bulk refurbished direct from Apple. If 
they don't have them refurbished I just buy new, but that hasn't 
happened yet.


Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson > wrote:



This is my biggest gripe right now.

The more internet you provide to them, the worse this problem is.

I think my contractors are selling mid-range $100 linksys routers.

I’m not sure that’s the best thing.

I too need to find a handful of routers that really get the job done 
right.


I’ve noticed the Apple routers tend to be pretty good, especially if 
they have Apple Ecosystem/devices.


And apple extenders seem to work better with their apple environment 
and are way easy for the customer to set up.


Other than Apple, I usually recommend a router with external antennas.

And TRY to get our people to NOT install the routers in the basement 
under all the metal ducting, lol!


Ideally they are installed on the main floor in a somewhat central 
location.


What I am considering is selling a NON-wireless router for our end 
point inside the house near the clustered wiring.


Then programming any router they get in BRIDGE mode.

I still don’t like doing that because the router features are 
something most of these people want anyways.


But with my speeds I would almost just rather make sure they have a 
wired Gigabit Ethernet router that I can manage and I know is 
capable, then let them buy however many wireless routers they need to 
fill in gaps all over their house (or, preferably, ONE powerful 
wireless router).


I just don’t want to be stuck changing port forwarding crap etc.

What I really wish was that a separate company would do this for a 
one time, or monthly charge and handle all their router woes.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11:39 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Thanks for the input guys.

I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on 
occasion, but my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.


I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD 
or something.


- Original Message -

*From:*Justin Wilson - MTIN 

*To:*af@afmug.com 

*Sent:*Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a customer
router costs you in support and service calls.  We have several
clients who are doing one of a couple things.

Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month.  This
is typically a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up
the wireless, manages the router, and other such functions.  
This allows for a reference point on the customer side for

testing, etc.

The other way to approach this is if you don’t want mess with
router configuration some folks are including a “modem” that is
essentially a hAP or 750.  This is just in bridge mode or is the
PPPOE client.  The customer then is free to plug in their own
router if they so desire, but you still have a reference point
from the customer side.  If you need a customer to bypass their
router you simply ask them to plug into port5 or whatever on your
“modem”. That port can be setup to do DHCP or whatever.

You have to look at how much support consumer routers is costing
you.  Many folks look at the cost of the routers and the cost to
install them or replace them.  But if it cuts your support calls
by 30% that might mean the difference between hiring another
person, or other “soft” costs.

Justin Wilson

j...@mtin.net 

---
http://www.mtin.netOwner/CEO

xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

> What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad.

Really?  Lots of people no longer have a computer, just “devices”.

Lots and lots of “devices”.  And soon, “things”.  Vaguely reminds me of the SNL 
census taker skit.  Well, there’s me ... my wife ... our plants ... we have 
some candy bars.

iPads and airPorts do come from the same company, right?


From: Bill Prince 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 4:38 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Totally true. Apple makes an AirPort tool of sorts for Windows, but it sucks 
major bronto.

What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad. 


bp


On 10/7/2015 11:21 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:

  My guys hate the Apple routers because they can’t be configured from a web 
GUI, you need the AirPort software on your computer.  At least that’s what they 
tell me.


  From: Brett A Mansfield 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:08 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

  For my customers that want me to sell them or manage their solution I charge 
an extra $25 install fee and $5/mo. I use edgerouters as the router and an 
airport express in bridge mode for the wireless. I can throw on as many of the 
airports as needed to get the job done for an extra fee. 

  It works really well. I haven't had any customer complaint with it. They 
don't have to power cycle anything ever either.

  I buy the airport express in bulk refurbished direct from Apple. If they 
don't have them refurbished I just buy new, but that hasn't happened yet.

  Thank you, 
  Brett A Mansfield

  On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:


This is my biggest gripe right now.

 

The more internet you provide to them, the worse this problem is.

 

I think my contractors are selling mid-range $100 linksys routers.

I’m not sure that’s the best thing.

 

I too need to find a handful of routers that really get the job done right.

 

I’ve noticed the Apple routers tend to be pretty good, especially if they 
have Apple Ecosystem/devices.

And apple extenders seem to work better with their apple environment and 
are way easy for the customer to set up.

 

Other than Apple, I usually recommend a router with external antennas.

And TRY to get our people to NOT install the routers in the basement under 
all the metal ducting, lol!

 

Ideally they are installed on the main floor in a somewhat central location.

 

What I am considering is selling a NON-wireless router for our end point 
inside the house near the clustered wiring.

Then programming any router they get in BRIDGE mode.

 

I still don’t like doing that because the router features are something 
most of these people want anyways.

 

But with my speeds I would almost just rather make sure they have a wired 
Gigabit Ethernet router that I can manage and I know is capable, then let them 
buy however many wireless routers they need to fill in gaps all over their 
house (or, preferably, ONE powerful wireless router).

 

I just don’t want to be stuck changing port forwarding crap etc.

 

What I really wish was that a separate company would do this for a one 
time, or monthly charge and handle all their router woes.

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11:39 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

 

Thanks for the input guys.

I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on occasion, but 
my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.

I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD or 
something. 

 

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Justin Wilson - MTIN 

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

   

  My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a customer router 
costs you in support and service calls.  We have several clients who are doing 
one of a couple things.

   

  Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month.  This is 
typically a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up the wireless, 
manages the router, and other such functions.   This allows for a reference 
point on the customer side for testing, etc.  

   

  The other way to approach this is if you don’t want mess with router 
configuration some folks are including a “modem” that is essentially a hAP or 
750.  This is just in bridge mode or is the PPPOE client.  The customer then is 
free to plug in their own router if they so desire, but you still have a 
reference point from the customer side.  If you need a customer to bypass their 
router you simply ask them to plug into port5 or whatever on

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever
they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above
500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing
rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500',
which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed
to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of
> them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
> destroy them
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
>> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>
>>
>> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and
>> it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful
>> with these things from day one
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim  wrote:
>>
>>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
>>> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
>>> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement.
>>> The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International of
>>> Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan
>>> conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most congested
>>> airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City and
>>> Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,” the
>>> FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft were
>>> “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting
>>> equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a certificate of
>>> waiver or authorization for the operations, the release said. SkyPan has 30
>>> days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t
>>> have an immediate comment.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Perhaps if you posted “no drone zone” like no trespassing signs
I think it would be fun to shoot at them.  I am wondering if it would be 
possible to create a line of drones with titanium armor over the expensive bits 
(motors, batteries, electronics) and have lots of spare parts.  Make a shooting 
range where folks can pay to blast a drone out of the sky.  Costs more if they 
have a camera...

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to 
destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission, and 
everyone is happy.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:

  Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to 250 
feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500 feet 
could ruin their day.  

  From: Sean Heskett 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

  As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.  
There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or even a 
king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a bird 
strike. 

  We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary equipment 
to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national AERONAUTICAL  
and space administration.  They help invent the technology that the faa uses ;)

  On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard  wrote:

Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever 
they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above 
500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.

I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing 
rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500', which 
it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed to shoot 
them down if they fly over my property without permission.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of 
them being over private property without consent, you should be able to destroy 
them

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett 
 wrote:

I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I 
feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.

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

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 

To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty 

good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and 
it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with 
these things from day one

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim 
 wrote:

  The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil 
penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator “for 
endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a “careless or 
reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 
million civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago alleges that 
between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized 
operations “in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated 
cities [including New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations 
and various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved aerial 
photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a two-way radio, 
transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also 
failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, 
the release said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement 
letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.

-- 

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] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

no, will try-

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:

> Have you tried isolating the PTP600 with a DC/DC converter (Meanwell RSD,
> etc) in between the rectifier and PIDU?
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Gino Villarini 
> wrote:
>
>> ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate the issue
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating
>>> surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?
>>>
>>> *From:* Gino Villarini 
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
>>> Help!!
>>>
>>> i think so, afaik is floating ground
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common
 ground?

 *From:* Gino Villarini 
 *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
 Help!!

 So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48

 this is the setup:

 Emerson Rectifier feeding:

 Telco System MPLS router
 Planet Fiber SW
 2 Netonix DC Switches
 2 SAF POE Injectors
 2 PTP600 PIDUs

 AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground

 We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450

 all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF
 SS on the rack

 So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the
 PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the
 Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..

 im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?



>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and it
needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with
these things from day one

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim  wrote:

> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement.
> The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International of
> Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan
> conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most congested
> airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City and
> Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,” the
> FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft were
> “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting
> equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a certificate of
> waiver or authorization for the operations, the release said. SkyPan has 30
> days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t
> have an immediate comment.
>



-- 
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] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread chuck

Well, the rules - they are kinda mutually exclusive.  Civilian aircraft are to 
stay 500 feet away from any person, vehicle or structure.  Normally that is 
interpreted as a 500 foot AGL floor unless involved in takeoff or landing.

Drones are supposed to be below 500 feet.  And Civil aircraft can fly over 
private property with impunity.  Much to the chagrin of many homeowners in 
rural areas.  

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of them 
being over private property without consent, you should be able to destroy them

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I feel. 
Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.




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



--

  From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty 



  good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and it 
needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with 
these things from day one

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim  wrote:

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil 
penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator “for 
endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a “careless or 
reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 
million civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago alleges that 
between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized 
operations “in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated 
cities [including New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations 
and various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved aerial 
photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a two-way radio, 
transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also 
failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, 
the release said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement 
letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.




  -- 

  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] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

I think if you are going to go off private property or above a certain
height the device should have a tamper proof flight data recorder. Any
commercial use, flight data recorder. Big, bulky, flight data recorders for
all!!
That way, if I shoot one down, if it didn't have a flight data recorder, it
was illegal, no harm, no foul, if it did have one, the recorder will show
they were over my property with no signed consent, no harm, no foul.

Registration numbers, very visible too, that way, when one is not on my
property, but has its camera focused on my daughter, I can track the owner
down and murder him, his mother, two of his cousins and every pet in his
neighborhood

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever
> they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above
> 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing
> rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500',
> which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed
> to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of
>> them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
>> destroy them
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
>>> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>>
>>>
>>> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and
>>> it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful
>>> with these things from day one
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim  wrote:
>>>
 The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
 penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
 “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
 “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
 announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
 International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15,
 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
 congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
 and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,”
 the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
 were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
 altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a
 certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, the release
 said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it
 said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>
>


-- 
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] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade


  
  
Same here, -89 is effectively useless...  It'll also be dragging
down all of the other clients on the same sector by using up air
time (TDD) causing the radio to do QPSK 1/2 modulation.


On 10/7/15 1:11 PM, Jeremy wrote:

  I would not expect -86 and -89 to stay connected,
on any firmware.
  
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Justin
  Marshall 
  wrote:
  

  
Sorry,
  
 
That
should have read:
This AP originally had 6 SM’s
  connected at 5690
 

  
From:
Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]
On Behalf Of Justin Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Client can't connect
since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade
  


   
  Hi,
   
   
  I recently updated a UBNT Rocket
M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this update, one of
the clients will not connect.
   
  This AP originally had 6 SM’s
connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from 5.5.4 to
5.6.2, 2 of the SM’s didn’t come back.  These 2 were
not at the best signal (-86 and -89).  If I swapped
frequencies to 5740 the 1 connected at -86 popped
back up at an -88 and the other SM’s are ~-2 db. 
But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
   
  This led me to believe UBNT
probably lowered the output power for DFS
frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2…
   
  One would think that downgrading
the SM’s and AP back down to 5.5.4 would put things
back the way they were but that doesn’t seem to be
the case.
  
   
  I even sent a tech onsite to swap
out the unreachable SM with one that had 5.5.4 on
it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with
5.6.2 both see the AP at -89 under “Site survey” but
won’t register to the AP.
   
  I’m at a loss here… Does anyone
have any suggestions of things to try, or a magic
firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4
is best for DFS frequencies) that might make this AP
act the way it did prior to upgrading to 5.6.2?
  I’ve already tried every other 5
Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of different
country codes), most with worse results.
   
  Thanks,
  Justin
  just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

2015-10-07 Thread Jaime Solorza

They connect and pass data @ -90!!!  Just finished reconfiguring a SCADA
network and needed to make a change on another radio. On a hunch i changed
SSID and connected.   Saved me a trip to that well site.   These are all
Bullet M5s

Jaime Solorza
On Oct 7, 2015 2:11 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

> I would not expect -86 and -89 to stay connected, on any firmware.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Justin Marshall 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry,
>>
>>
>>
>> That should have read:
>>
>> This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at *5690*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Justin Marshall
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:57 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
>> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>>
>>
>>
>> This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from
>> 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM’s didn’t come back.  These 2 were not at the
>> best signal (-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1
>> connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SM’s are ~-2 db.
>> But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>>
>>
>>
>> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
>> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2…
>>
>>
>>
>> One would think that downgrading the SM’s and AP back down to 5.5.4 would
>> put things back the way they were but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
>>
>>
>>
>> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that
>> had 5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both
>> see the AP at -89 under “Site survey” but won’t register to the AP.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m at a loss here… Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or
>> a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for
>> DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to
>> upgrading to 5.6.2?
>>
>> I’ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of
>> different country codes), most with worse results.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> just...@pdmnet.net
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread chuck

Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to 250 
feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500 feet 
could ruin their day.  

From: Sean Heskett 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.  
There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or even a 
king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a bird 
strike. 

We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary equipment to 
keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national AERONAUTICAL  and 
space administration.  They help invent the technology that the faa uses ;)

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard  wrote:

  Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever 
they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above 
500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.

  I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing 
rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500', which 
it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed to shoot 
them down if they fly over my property without permission.

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of 
them being over private property without consent, you should be able to destroy 
them

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett 
 wrote:

  I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I 
feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.

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

--

  From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 

  To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
  Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty 

  good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and 
it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with 
these things from day one

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim 
 wrote:

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil 
penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator “for 
endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a “careless or 
reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 
million civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago alleges that 
between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized 
operations “in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated 
cities [including New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations 
and various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved aerial 
photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a two-way radio, 
transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also 
failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, 
the release said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement 
letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.

  -- 

  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] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating surface, 
can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?

From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

i think so, afaik is floating ground 

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common ground?

  From: Gino Villarini 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

  So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48 

  this is the setup:

  Emerson Rectifier feeding:

  Telco System MPLS router
  Planet Fiber SW
  2 Netonix DC Switches 
  2 SAF POE Injectors
  2 PTP600 PIDUs

  AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground

  We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450

  all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF SS on 
the rack

  So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the 
PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the 
Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..

  im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread David


Use a 44MM AA cannon LOL


On 10/07/2015 04:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat 
of them being over private property without consent, you should be 
able to destroy them


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett > wrote:


I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just
how I feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing
new is required.



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


*From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" >
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty


good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned
in, and it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have
been disrespectful with these things from day one

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim > wrote:

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest
civil penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft
system operator “for endangering the safety of our airspace”
by operating drones in a “careless or reckless manner,” the
agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9
million civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago
alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan
conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including
New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and
various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved
aerial photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a
two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,”
the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a certificate of
waiver or authorization for the operations, the release said.
SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter,
it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.




-- 
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] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

5.6.2 has no power changes.

Power changes came into play 5.6.3beta-something


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

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> If they were that weak, I'm guessing the clients weren't running at 30dbm
> EIRP. before v5.6.x, clients could run at full power regardless of whether
> it was legal in that particular band. So if, for example, we're talking
> about a NanoBridge M5-25, it could've been (and probably was) running at
> 23dbm Tx Power, but legally it can only run at 5dBm in the DFS band, so
> when you upgraded to 5.6.2 it forced it to the legal limit so you lost some
> 18db... if it was at -86, that's obviously not going to work.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
>> -89 is not a "usable" power level IMO.
>>
>> bp
>> 
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/2015 12:57 PM, Justin Marshall wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
>> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> This AP originally had 6 SMï¿½s connected at 5490.ï¿½ After the upgrade
>> from 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SMï¿½s didnï¿½t come back. ï¿½These 2 were
>> not at the best signal (-86 and -89).ï¿½ If I swapped frequencies to 5740
>> the 1 connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SMï¿½s are
>> ~-2 db.ï¿½ But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
>> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2ï¿½
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> One would think that downgrading the SMï¿½s and AP back down to 5.5.4
>> would put things back the way they were but that doesnï¿½t seem to be the
>> case.
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that
>> had 5.5.4 on it.ï¿½ He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both
>> see the AP at -89 under ï¿½Site surveyï¿½ but wonï¿½t register to the AP.
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> Iï¿½m at a loss hereï¿½ Does anyone have any suggestions of things to
>> try, or a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is
>> best for DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior
>> to upgrading to 5.6.2?
>>
>> Iï¿½ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of
>> different country codes), most with worse results.
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> just...@pdmnet.net
>>
>> ï¿½
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Jaime Solorza

Shoot them all down.even Ginos.  Lol.  Now i sound like a
Texanwow.

Jaime Solorza
On Oct 7, 2015 5:29 PM, "Mathew Howard"  wrote:

> Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to
> destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission,
> and everyone is happy.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
>> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
>> feet could ruin their day.
>>
>> *From:* Sean Heskett 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>
>> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my
>> airspace.  There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a
>> Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more
>> damage than a bird strike.
>>
>> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
>> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
>> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
>> that the faa uses ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do
>>> whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they
>>> stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the
>>> existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay
>>> under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if,
>>> I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over my property without
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>>
 If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
 of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
 destroy them

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:

> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
> required.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
> *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
>
> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in,
> and it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been
> disrespectful with these things from day one
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:
>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system
>> operator “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones
>> in a “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
>> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
>> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 
>> 15,
>> 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
>> congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
>> and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating 
>> rules,”
>> the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
>> were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
>> altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to 
>> obtain a
>> certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, the release
>> said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it
>> said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

2015-10-07 Thread Justin Marshall

Sorry,

That should have read:
This AP originally had 6 SM's connected at 5690

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

Hi,

I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this update, one 
of the clients will not connect.

This AP originally had 6 SM's connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from 5.5.4 
to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM's didn't come back.  These 2 were not at the best signal 
(-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1 connected at -86 popped 
back up at an -88 and the other SM's are ~-2 db.  But still no sign of the one 
that was at -89.

This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS 
frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2...

One would think that downgrading the SM's and AP back down to 5.5.4 would put 
things back the way they were but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had 
5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see the AP 
at -89 under "Site survey" but won't register to the AP.

I'm at a loss here... Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or a 
magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for DFS 
frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to upgrading to 
5.6.2?
I've already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of 
different country codes), most with worse results.

Thanks,
Justin
just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

2015-10-07 Thread Jeremy

I would not expect -86 and -89 to stay connected, on any firmware.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Justin Marshall  wrote:

> Sorry,
>
>
>
> That should have read:
>
> This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at *5690*
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Justin Marshall
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:57 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>
>
>
> This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from
> 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM’s didn’t come back.  These 2 were not at the
> best signal (-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1
> connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SM’s are ~-2 db.
> But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>
>
>
> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2…
>
>
>
> One would think that downgrading the SM’s and AP back down to 5.5.4 would
> put things back the way they were but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
>
>
>
> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had
> 5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see
> the AP at -89 under “Site survey” but won’t register to the AP.
>
>
>
> I’m at a loss here… Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or
> a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for
> DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to
> upgrading to 5.6.2?
>
> I’ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of
> different country codes), most with worse results.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin
>
> just...@pdmnet.net
>
>
>

[AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Hardy, Tim

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil penalty” 
it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator “for endangering 
the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a “careless or reckless 
manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 million 
civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago alleges that between 
March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations 
“in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated cities 
[including New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and 
various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved aerial 
photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a two-way radio, 
transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also 
failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, 
the release said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement 
letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade


-89 is not a "usable" power level IMO.

bp


On 10/7/2015 12:57 PM, Justin Marshall wrote:


Hi,

I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this 
update, one of the clients will not connect.


This AP originally had 6 SMï¿½s connected at 5490.  After the upgrade 
from 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SMï¿½s didnï¿½t come back.  These 2 were not 
at the best signal (-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 
the 1 connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SMï¿½s are 
~-2 db. But still no sign of the one that was at -89.


This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS 
frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2ï¿½


One would think that downgrading the SMï¿½s and AP back down to 5.5.4 
would put things back the way they were but that doesnï¿½t seem to be 
the case.


I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that 
had 5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 
both see the AP at -89 under ï¿½Site surveyï¿½ but wonï¿½t register to the AP.


Iï¿½m at a loss hereï¿½ Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, 
or a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is 
best for DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did 
prior to upgrading to 5.6.2?


Iï¿½ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix 
of different country codes), most with worse results.


Thanks,

Justin

just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

2015-10-07 Thread Ryan Ray

Cut down some trees


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> -89 is not a "usable" power level IMO.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 12:57 PM, Justin Marshall wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ï¿½
>
> ï¿½
>
> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>
> ï¿½
>
> This AP originally had 6 SMï¿½s connected at 5490.ï¿½ After the upgrade
> from 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SMï¿½s didnï¿½t come back. ï¿½These 2 were
> not at the best signal (-86 and -89).ï¿½ If I swapped frequencies to 5740
> the 1 connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SMï¿½s are
> ~-2 db.ï¿½ But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>
> ï¿½
>
> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2ï¿½
>
> ï¿½
>
> One would think that downgrading the SMï¿½s and AP back down to 5.5.4
> would put things back the way they were but that doesnï¿½t seem to be the
> case.
>
> ï¿½
>
> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had
> 5.5.4 on it.ï¿½ He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see
> the AP at -89 under ï¿½Site surveyï¿½ but wonï¿½t register to the AP.
>
> ï¿½
>
> Iï¿½m at a loss hereï¿½ Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try,
> or a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for
> DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to
> upgrading to 5.6.2?
>
> Iï¿½ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of
> different country codes), most with worse results.
>
> ï¿½
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin
>
> just...@pdmnet.net
>
> ï¿½
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Mikrotik CRS Management VLAN

2015-10-07 Thread Jason McKemie

So to do this I just need to add a vlan to the master port and put the
management IP on that? The example from Mikrotik says something about
putting the vlan on the switch cpu port. I'm getting inconsistent results
with just the vlan on the master port.

-Jason

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

Yep.

That is marginal at best.

I've found MT *much* more stable beyond -83 than UBNT hardware by far. UBNT 
forums seems to support that as well. The majority flog you for a signal worse 
than -70. I have a lot of full speed MT links at -79.

UBNT seems to need -70s to be stable. You were living on the edge.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Jeremy 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade


  I would not expect -86 and -89 to stay connected, on any firmware.


  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Justin Marshall  wrote:

Sorry, 



That should have read:

This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5690



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Justin Marshall
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade



Hi,





I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this update, 
one of the clients will not connect.



This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from 
5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM’s didn’t come back.  These 2 were not at the best 
signal (-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1 connected at -86 
popped back up at an -88 and the other SM’s are ~-2 db.  But still no sign of 
the one that was at -89.



This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS 
frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2…



One would think that downgrading the SM’s and AP back down to 5.5.4 would 
put things back the way they were but that doesn’t seem to be the case. 



I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had 
5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see the AP 
at -89 under “Site survey” but won’t register to the AP.



I’m at a loss here… Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or a 
magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for DFS 
frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to upgrading to 
5.6.2?

I’ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of 
different country codes), most with worse results.



Thanks,

Justin

just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

2015-10-07 Thread Rory Conaway

We use AirGateway-LRs now for most homes and AirRouter HP’s when we need more 
range.  Just ran into some inventory issues with the LR’s but they have been 
better than the AirRouters which we stopped using.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 9:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Yeahreally the only "feature" I want for a router that I would sell or 
provide to an end user is that you don't have to reboot it all the time.  I 
can't bring myself to get excited about any of the other stuff that they 
allegedly do.
On 10/7/2015 12:42 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
They put too much crap in the routers that customers just don't understand, 
like hooking up USB drives for media sharing, wtf, let a router be a router, 
but I guess in our trans everything society, transhardware was bound to happen 
too. It explains a lot, many of these consumer routers identify as paperwights, 
and who are we to tell these routers that they cant be paperweights.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Brett A Mansfield 
> wrote:
I've had very bad luck with Belkin, D-Link, Asus (the worst), linksys, and low 
end netgear. I've had great success with the higher end netgear and the 3rd 
through 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme. Prior to the 3rd gen and the 6th gen 
(latest) airports are junk. So I'm with you, pretty much every consumer grade 
router is trash now.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Glen Waldrop 
> wrote:
Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?

I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality seems to 
be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block specific outgoing 
traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...

--
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] mikrotik control an output ip

I think the problem is this is in the output chain but part of an
established connection do it doesn't go back through srcnat
I tried marking the connection (new packets with ttl=1) to get it to flow
that way, the filter catches it, but the ttl expired doesn't nat, I assume
for the same reason
I don't know if it can be cheated via some custom routing to mark the
packet and add the source to an address list with a policy router for icmp
type 10 via a loopback that NATs the packet. Seems convoluted though and
probably heavy?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:54 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> no, just when it delivers a ttl expired
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> Are you trying to set it so that every time the router pings something it
>> comes from 1.2.3.4?
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:31 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  0chain=output action=accept protocol=icmp icmp-options=11:0-255
>>> log=yes
>>>   log-prefix="icmp mangle"
>>>
>>> This is the traffic, I want it to always present as say 1.2.3.4, with it
>>> being in theoutput chain, whats a guy got to do to control this?
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>

-- 
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.

[AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48

this is the setup:

Emerson Rectifier feeding:

Telco System MPLS router
Planet Fiber SW
2 Netonix DC Switches
2 SAF POE Injectors
2 PTP600 PIDUs

AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground

We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450

all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF SS
on the rack

So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the
PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the
Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..

im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

2015-10-07 Thread Mike Hammett

Even at several dB more than that. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:11:02 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade 


I would not expect -86 and -89 to stay connected, on any firmware. 


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Justin Marshall < just...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 





Sorry, 

That should have read: 
This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5690 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Justin Marshall 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:57 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade 

Hi, 


I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this update, one 
of the clients will not connect. 

This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5490. After the upgrade from 5.5.4 
to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM’s didn’t come back. These 2 were not at the best signal 
(-86 and -89). If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1 connected at -86 popped 
back up at an -88 and the other SM’s are ~-2 db. But still no sign of the one 
that was at -89. 

This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS 
frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2… 

One would think that downgrading the SM’s and AP back down to 5.5.4 would put 
things back the way they were but that doesn’t seem to be the case. 

I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had 
5.5.4 on it. He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see the AP 
at -89 under “Site survey” but won’t register to the AP. 

I’m at a loss here… Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or a 
magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for DFS 
frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to upgrading to 
5.6.2? 
I’ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of 
different country codes), most with worse results. 

Thanks, 
Justin 
just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Sean Heskett

As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.
There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or
even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a
bird strike.

We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary equipment
to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
that the faa uses ;)



On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever
> they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above
> 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing
> rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500',
> which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed
> to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of
>> them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
>> destroy them
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett > > wrote:
>>
>>> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
>>> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" >> >
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com 
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>>
>>>
>>> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and
>>> it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful
>>> with these things from day one
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim >> > wrote:
>>>
 The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
 penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
 “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
 “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
 announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
 International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15,
 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
 congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
 and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,”
 the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
 were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
 altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a
 certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, the release
 said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it
 said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread chuck

If you shoot one down, make sure you pick up the pieces.  
Drone?  What drone?  I didn’t see no stinkin’ drone.  

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

I think if you are going to go off private property or above a certain height 
the device should have a tamper proof flight data recorder. Any commercial use, 
flight data recorder. Big, bulky, flight data recorders for all!!
That way, if I shoot one down, if it didn't have a flight data recorder, it was 
illegal, no harm, no foul, if it did have one, the recorder will show they were 
over my property with no signed consent, no harm, no foul.

Registration numbers, very visible too, that way, when one is not on my 
property, but has its camera focused on my daughter, I can track the owner down 
and murder him, his mother, two of his cousins and every pet in his neighborhood

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:

  Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever 
they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above 
500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.

  I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing 
rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500', which 
it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed to shoot 
them down if they fly over my property without permission.

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of 
them being over private property without consent, you should be able to destroy 
them

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

  I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I 
feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.

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

--

  From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty 

  good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and 
it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with 
these things from day one

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim  wrote:

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil 
penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator “for 
endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a “careless or 
reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 
million civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago alleges that 
between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized 
operations “in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated 
cities [including New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations 
and various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved aerial 
photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a two-way radio, 
transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also 
failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, 
the release said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement 
letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.

  -- 

  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.

-- 

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] Consumer routers?

I (for one) think you're wrong. But I pretty much loath most things 
apple, so there's that. I spent almost an hour with an experienced apple 
user (and an uber geek) trying to find a log file on an AirPort, but 
they keep removing features from the AirPort. The AirPort is probably 
running a stripped-down version of IOS, but it's pretty opaque from my 
perspective. Why it can't be a simple web GUI like everyone else on the 
planet is beyond me. Plus the look & feel changes with almost every new 
release. Makes it pretty much impossible to talk someone through it over 
the phone.


PITA POS if you ask me.

bp


On 10/7/2015 2:48 PM, Brett A Mansfield wrote:
I think the app isn't very good, but the tool on a PC or Mac is really 
good, intuitive, and works well.  I see the app as a web GUI on 
steroids. It just works. I think the more you play with it the more 
features you realize it has. I think a lot of my counterparts here on 
this list just don't like it because it's Apple, but I could be wrong.


Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Bill Prince > wrote:


Totally true. Apple makes an AirPort tool of sorts for Windows, but 
it sucks major bronto.


What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad.

bp


On 10/7/2015 11:21 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
My guys hate the Apple routers because they can’t be configured from 
a web GUI, you need the AirPort software on your computer.  At least 
that’s what they tell me.

*From:* Brett A Mansfield 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:08 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
For my customers that want me to sell them or manage their solution 
I charge an extra $25 install fee and $5/mo. I use edgerouters as 
the router and an airport express in bridge mode for the wireless. I 
can throw on as many of the airports as needed to get the job done 
for an extra fee.
It works really well. I haven't had any customer complaint with it. 
They don't have to power cycle anything ever either.
I buy the airport express in bulk refurbished direct from Apple. If 
they don't have them refurbished I just buy new, but that hasn't 
happened yet.


Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson 
 wrote:



This is my biggest gripe right now.

The more internet you provide to them, the worse this problem is.

I think my contractors are selling mid-range $100 linksys routers.

I’m not sure that’s the best thing.

I too need to find a handful of routers that really get the job 
done right.


I’ve noticed the Apple routers tend to be pretty good, especially 
if they have Apple Ecosystem/devices.


And apple extenders seem to work better with their apple 
environment and are way easy for the customer to set up.


Other than Apple, I usually recommend a router with external antennas.

And TRY to get our people to NOT install the routers in the 
basement under all the metal ducting, lol!


Ideally they are installed on the main floor in a somewhat central 
location.


What I am considering is selling a NON-wireless router for our end 
point inside the house near the clustered wiring.


Then programming any router they get in BRIDGE mode.

I still don’t like doing that because the router features are 
something most of these people want anyways.


But with my speeds I would almost just rather make sure they have a 
wired Gigabit Ethernet router that I can manage and I know is 
capable, then let them buy however many wireless routers they need 
to fill in gaps all over their house (or, preferably, ONE powerful 
wireless router).


I just don’t want to be stuck changing port forwarding crap etc.

What I really wish was that a separate company would do this for a 
one time, or monthly charge and handle all their router woes.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11:39 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Thanks for the input guys.

I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on 
occasion, but my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.


I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 
2HnD or something.


- Original Message -

*From:*Justin Wilson - MTIN 

*To:*af@afmug.com

*Sent:*Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a
customer router costs you in support and service calls.  We
have several clients who are doing one of a couple things.

Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month. This
is typically a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up
the wireless,

[AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

2015-10-07 Thread Justin Marshall

Hi,


I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this update, one 
of the clients will not connect.

This AP originally had 6 SM's connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from 5.5.4 
to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM's didn't come back.  These 2 were not at the best signal 
(-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1 connected at -86 popped 
back up at an -88 and the other SM's are ~-2 db.  But still no sign of the one 
that was at -89.

This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS 
frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2...

One would think that downgrading the SM's and AP back down to 5.5.4 would put 
things back the way they were but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had 
5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see the AP 
at -89 under "Site survey" but won't register to the AP.

I'm at a loss here... Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or a 
magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for DFS 
frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to upgrading to 
5.6.2?
I've already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of 
different country codes), most with worse results.

Thanks,
Justin
just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

i think so, afaik is floating ground

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common ground?
>
> *From:* Gino Villarini 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!
>
> So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
>
> this is the setup:
>
> Emerson Rectifier feeding:
>
> Telco System MPLS router
> Planet Fiber SW
> 2 Netonix DC Switches
> 2 SAF POE Injectors
> 2 PTP600 PIDUs
>
> AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground
>
> We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
>
> all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF SS
> on the rack
>
> So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the
> PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the
> Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..
>
> im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

But on the bench, the chassis was probably not grounded.  

From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate the issue

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating 
surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?

  From: Gino Villarini 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

  i think so, afaik is floating ground 

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common ground?

From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48 

this is the setup:

Emerson Rectifier feeding:

Telco System MPLS router
Planet Fiber SW
2 Netonix DC Switches 
2 SAF POE Injectors
2 PTP600 PIDUs

AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground

We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450

all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF SS 
on the rack

So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the 
PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the 
Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..

im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?

Re: [AFMUG] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

If they were that weak, I'm guessing the clients weren't running at 30dbm
EIRP. before v5.6.x, clients could run at full power regardless of whether
it was legal in that particular band. So if, for example, we're talking
about a NanoBridge M5-25, it could've been (and probably was) running at
23dbm Tx Power, but legally it can only run at 5dBm in the DFS band, so
when you upgraded to 5.6.2 it forced it to the legal limit so you lost some
18db... if it was at -86, that's obviously not going to work.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> -89 is not a "usable" power level IMO.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 12:57 PM, Justin Marshall wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ï¿½
>
> ï¿½
>
> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>
> ï¿½
>
> This AP originally had 6 SMï¿½s connected at 5490.ï¿½ After the upgrade
> from 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SMï¿½s didnï¿½t come back. ï¿½These 2 were
> not at the best signal (-86 and -89).ï¿½ If I swapped frequencies to 5740
> the 1 connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SMï¿½s are
> ~-2 db.ï¿½ But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>
> ï¿½
>
> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2ï¿½
>
> ï¿½
>
> One would think that downgrading the SMï¿½s and AP back down to 5.5.4
> would put things back the way they were but that doesnï¿½t seem to be the
> case.
>
> ï¿½
>
> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had
> 5.5.4 on it.ï¿½ He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see
> the AP at -89 under ï¿½Site surveyï¿½ but wonï¿½t register to the AP.
>
> ï¿½
>
> Iï¿½m at a loss hereï¿½ Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try,
> or a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for
> DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to
> upgrading to 5.6.2?
>
> Iï¿½ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of
> different country codes), most with worse results.
>
> ï¿½
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin
>
> just...@pdmnet.net
>
> ï¿½
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

2015-10-07 Thread Brett A Mansfield

I think the app isn't very good, but the tool on a PC or Mac is really good, 
intuitive, and works well.  I see the app as a web GUI on steroids. It just 
works. I think the more you play with it the more features you realize it has. 
I think a lot of my counterparts here on this list just don't like it because 
it's Apple, but I could be wrong.

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
> 
> Totally true. Apple makes an AirPort tool of sorts for Windows, but it sucks 
> major bronto.
> 
> What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad. 
> 
> bp
> 
> 
>> On 10/7/2015 11:21 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>> My guys hate the Apple routers because they can’t be configured from a web 
>> GUI, you need the AirPort software on your computer.  At least that’s what 
>> they tell me.
>>  
>>  
>> From: Brett A Mansfield
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:08 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>>  
>> For my customers that want me to sell them or manage their solution I charge 
>> an extra $25 install fee and $5/mo. I use edgerouters as the router and an 
>> airport express in bridge mode for the wireless. I can throw on as many of 
>> the airports as needed to get the job done for an extra fee.
>>  
>> It works really well. I haven't had any customer complaint with it. They 
>> don't have to power cycle anything ever either.
>>  
>> I buy the airport express in bulk refurbished direct from Apple. If they 
>> don't have them refurbished I just buy new, but that hasn't happened yet.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>> 
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
>> 
>>> This is my biggest gripe right now.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The more internet you provide to them, the worse this problem is.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I think my contractors are selling mid-range $100 linksys routers.
>>> 
>>> I’m not sure that’s the best thing.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I too need to find a handful of routers that really get the job done right.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I’ve noticed the Apple routers tend to be pretty good, especially if they 
>>> have Apple Ecosystem/devices.
>>> 
>>> And apple extenders seem to work better with their apple environment and 
>>> are way easy for the customer to set up.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Other than Apple, I usually recommend a router with external antennas.
>>> 
>>> And TRY to get our people to NOT install the routers in the basement under 
>>> all the metal ducting, lol!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Ideally they are installed on the main floor in a somewhat central location.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> What I am considering is selling a NON-wireless router for our end point 
>>> inside the house near the clustered wiring.
>>> 
>>> Then programming any router they get in BRIDGE mode.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I still don’t like doing that because the router features are something 
>>> most of these people want anyways.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> But with my speeds I would almost just rather make sure they have a wired 
>>> Gigabit Ethernet router that I can manage and I know is capable, then let 
>>> them buy however many wireless routers they need to fill in gaps all over 
>>> their house (or, preferably, ONE powerful wireless router).
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> I just don’t want to be stuck changing port forwarding crap etc.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> What I really wish was that a separate company would do this for a one 
>>> time, or monthly charge and handle all their router woes.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Glen Waldrop
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11:39 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the input guys.
>>> 
>>> I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on occasion, but 
>>> my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.
>>> 
>>> I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD or 
>>> something.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> - Original Message -
>>> 
>>> From: Justin Wilson - MTIN
>>> 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a customer router 
>>> costs you in support and service calls.  We have several clients who are 
>>> doing one of a couple things.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month.  This is 
>>> typically a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up the wireless, 
>>> manages the router, and other such functions.   This allows for a reference 
>>> point on the customer side for testing, etc. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The other way to approach this is if you don’t want mess with router 
>>> configuration some folks are including a “modem” that is essentially a hAP 
>>> or 750.  This is just in

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to
destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission,
and everyone is happy.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:

> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
> feet could ruin their day.
>
> *From:* Sean Heskett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.
> There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or
> even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a
> bird strike.
>
> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
> that the faa uses ;)
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever
>> they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above
>> 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing
>> rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500',
>> which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed
>> to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>
>>> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
>>> of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
>>> destroy them
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:
>>>
 I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
 feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
 required.



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

 --
 *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
 *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
 *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty


 good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and
 it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful
 with these things from day one

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:

> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15,
> 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
> congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
> and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,”
> the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
> were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
> altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain 
> a
> certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, the release
> said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it
> said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.
>



 --
 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] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

they removed some of the encryption modes

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Justin Marshall  wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
>
>
> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>
>
>
> This AP originally had 6 SM’s connected at 5490.  After the upgrade from
> 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SM’s didn’t come back.  These 2 were not at the
> best signal (-86 and -89).  If I swapped frequencies to 5740 the 1
> connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SM’s are ~-2 db.
> But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>
>
>
> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2…
>
>
>
> One would think that downgrading the SM’s and AP back down to 5.5.4 would
> put things back the way they were but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
>
>
>
> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that had
> 5.5.4 on it.  He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both see
> the AP at -89 under “Site survey” but won’t register to the AP.
>
>
>
> I’m at a loss here… Does anyone have any suggestions of things to try, or
> a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is best for
> DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior to
> upgrading to 5.6.2?
>
> I’ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix of
> different country codes), most with worse results.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin
>
> just...@pdmnet.net
>
>
>



-- 
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] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate the issue

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating
> surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?
>
> *From:* Gino Villarini 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
> Help!!
>
> i think so, afaik is floating ground
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common ground?
>>
>> *From:* Gino Villarini 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!
>>
>> So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
>>
>> this is the setup:
>>
>> Emerson Rectifier feeding:
>>
>> Telco System MPLS router
>> Planet Fiber SW
>> 2 Netonix DC Switches
>> 2 SAF POE Injectors
>> 2 PTP600 PIDUs
>>
>> AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground
>>
>> We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
>>
>> all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a WBMGF
>> SS on the rack
>>
>> So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect the
>> PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding the
>> Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..
>>
>> im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of
them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
destroy them

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
>
> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and it
> needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with
> these things from day one
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim  wrote:
>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
>> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
>> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement.
>> The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan International of
>> Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan
>> conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most congested
>> airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City and
>> Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,” the
>> FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft were
>> “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and altitude-reporting
>> equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain a certificate of
>> waiver or authorization for the operations, the release said. SkyPan has 30
>> days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t
>> have an immediate comment.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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] Client can't connect since UBNT 5.6.2 Firmware upgrade

Not power changes, but it does automatically limit the clients to 30dbm
EIRP on DFS channels now... in 5.5.x, clients just ran full blast if you
didn't manually set it.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> 5.6.2 has no power changes.
>
> Power changes came into play 5.6.3beta-something
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:50 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> If they were that weak, I'm guessing the clients weren't running at 30dbm
>> EIRP. before v5.6.x, clients could run at full power regardless of whether
>> it was legal in that particular band. So if, for example, we're talking
>> about a NanoBridge M5-25, it could've been (and probably was) running at
>> 23dbm Tx Power, but legally it can only run at 5dBm in the DFS band, so
>> when you upgraded to 5.6.2 it forced it to the legal limit so you lost some
>> 18db... if it was at -86, that's obviously not going to work.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>>> -89 is not a "usable" power level IMO.
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/7/2015 12:57 PM, Justin Marshall wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> I recently updated a UBNT Rocket M5 to 5.6.2 from 5.5.4. Since this
>>> update, one of the clients will not connect.
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> This AP originally had 6 SMï¿½s connected at 5490.ï¿½ After the upgrade
>>> from 5.5.4 to 5.6.2, 2 of the SMï¿½s didnï¿½t come back. ï¿½These 2 were
>>> not at the best signal (-86 and -89).ï¿½ If I swapped frequencies to 5740
>>> the 1 connected at -86 popped back up at an -88 and the other SMï¿½s are
>>> ~-2 db.ï¿½ But still no sign of the one that was at -89.
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> This led me to believe UBNT probably lowered the output power for DFS
>>> frequencies somewhere between 5.5.4 and 5.6.2ï¿½
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> One would think that downgrading the SMï¿½s and AP back down to 5.5.4
>>> would put things back the way they were but that doesnï¿½t seem to be the
>>> case.
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> I even sent a tech onsite to swap out the unreachable SM with one that
>>> had 5.5.4 on it.ï¿½ He said the one with 5.5.4 and the one with 5.6.2 both
>>> see the AP at -89 under ï¿½Site surveyï¿½ but wonï¿½t register to the AP.
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> Iï¿½m at a loss hereï¿½ Does anyone have any suggestions of things to
>>> try, or a magic firmware version (folks on the UBNT forums say 5.5.4 is
>>> best for DFS frequencies) that might make this AP act the way it did prior
>>> to upgrading to 5.6.2?
>>>
>>> Iï¿½ve already tried every other 5 Ghz Frequency available (with a mix
>>> of different country codes), most with worse results.
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> just...@pdmnet.net
>>>
>>> ï¿½
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Jason McKemie

You can get cheap Chinese drones that look OK (I haven't used them, but the
reviews are decent) for less than $100 depending on the features...

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Also charge folks to be the drone pilot so  it pits human against human.
> I would pay...
>
> Hmmm, what do cheap drones cost?
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Perhaps if you posted “no drone zone” like no trespassing signs
> I think it would be fun to shoot at them.  I am wondering if it would be
> possible to create a line of drones with titanium armor over the expensive
> bits (motors, batteries, electronics) and have lots of spare parts.  Make a
> shooting range where folks can pay to blast a drone out of the sky.  Costs
> more if they have a camera...
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard
> 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to
> destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission,
> and everyone is happy.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  > wrote:
>
>> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
>> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
>> feet could ruin their day.
>>
>> *From:* Sean Heskett 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>
>> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my
>> airspace.  There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a
>> Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more
>> damage than a bird strike.
>>
>> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
>> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
>> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
>> that the faa uses ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard > > wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do
>>> whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they
>>> stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the
>>> existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay
>>> under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if,
>>> I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over my property without
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>>
 If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
 of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
 destroy them

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:

> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
> required.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
> *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
>
> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in,
> and it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been
> disrespectful with these things from day one
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:
>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system
>> operator “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones
>> in a “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
>> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
>> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 
>>

[AFMUG] Exalt ExtendAir G2 issues?

2015-10-07 Thread George Skorup

For those of you that have had issues with the ExtendAir G2, what 
exactly were your problems? I have a new 11GHz link that randomly sees 
the BER go high in both directions and it drops out. RSL at both ends is 
normal during this. It looks like multipath or interference, but a 
reboot clears it up most of the time. The link was in an unavailable 
state for about 10 minutes this afternoon. I rebooted both ends and it 
was fine for a few hours. Then it happened again and I only rebooted the 
Tx low end and it was fine after that. Now it appears to be taking 
errors again, but there are no BER alarms or sync losses in the event 
log... yet.


I have dropped the Tx power on both ends to zero for a fade test and the 
modulation dropped a bit, but the BER was fine, so I don't think this is 
interference from another system. Leaning towards one of the radios 
being bad, just not sure which end yet. We've verified alignment at each 
end twice now, so it's not that. RSL at each end is also very close to 
what it should be, within 1-2dB.

Re: [AFMUG] Has anyone seen an S-Pipe that sticks into a satellite mount?

This?

http://www.summitsource.com/images/products/MTP2ST.jpg


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

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Sean Heskett  wrote:

> Do you mean this thing?
> http://bfy.tw/2A21
>
> We use them all the time.  Great idea for keeping antennas tucked away,
> close to the building.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Rory Conaway  wrote:
>
>> I’ve seen it in the past, just can’t find it again.  Any help would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>>
>> *4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <602-426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net*
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> *“Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep
>> your foot on first. “~Frederick B. Wilcox*
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

people are incompetent to operate vehicles in 2D space that's paved with
clearly defined lines and signs telling you exactly what you can and cannot
do. Put these assholes in 3D airspace from their patio, that will be a
clusterfcuk.

They also need to apply the same rules of intoxication, you should
absolutely get a DUI if youre drunk and operating one of these things from
your couch. A clearly defined liability for acts of god too. If youre out
tooling your jackfuckery over a populated area just because you can and
some retarded duck flies into it and it drops out of the sky cracking some
babies skull open, youre on the hook criminally and civil.



On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Sean Heskett  wrote:

> Well you can get this Octo-copter with 15" titanium blades :-/  it's able
> to carry a full size studio cinema camera.
>
> http://m.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s1000-plus
>
> That's a huge flying blender.
>
> Also RC airplanes need the operator within visual range to fly them
> because they don't have an on-board computer with GPS.  Modern drones
> (airplane or copter) can be miles from the operator because of the on-board
> flight computers.
>
> The faa wrote the RC hobby rules in the 1980's when computers were the
> size of a suitcase.
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> I guess they could define some rules, like in a collision the drone must
>> do less damage than a duck.  Make the rotors out of polystyrene.
>>
>> I've been wondering, are they really worse than model airplanes?  Those
>> are made of wood, carry nitro methane for fuel, and fly faster than a
>> drone.  To my untrained eye, it would seem like model airplanes would be
>> more dangerous to a real plane than a quadrotor drone.
>>
>> Is it just that quadrotors are easier to fly which opens the airspace to
>> more idiots?
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/2015 6:37 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>>
>> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
>> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
>> feet could ruin their day.
>>
>> *From:* Sean Heskett
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>
>> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my
>> airspace.  There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a
>> Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more
>> damage than a bird strike.
>>
>> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
>> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
>> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
>> that the faa uses ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do
>>> whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they
>>> stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the
>>> existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay
>>> under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if,
>>> I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over my property without
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>>
 If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
 of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
 destroy them

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:

> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
> required.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
> *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
>
> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in,
> and it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been
> disrespectful with these things from day one
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:
>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system
>> operator “for endangering the safety of our

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik CRS Management VLAN

2015-10-07 Thread Jon Langeler

every time I try to understand Mikrotik manuals I end up closing the browser 
and just figuring it out. They need to simplify CRS

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 6:50 PM, Jason McKemie  
> wrote:
> 
> So to do this I just need to add a vlan to the master port and put the 
> management IP on that? The example from Mikrotik says something about putting 
> the vlan on the switch cpu port. I'm getting inconsistent results with just 
> the vlan on the master port.
> 
> -Jason

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..


  
  
I bet it's intended for electric buses and similar. Those are
labeled CAN, guessing CANbus

http://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus


tl;dr: it's a messy clusterfuck networking standard that's worse
than RS485 and doesn't speak IP


On 10/7/15 5:11 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

  
  ~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a battery? What's
  available on the two ethernet ports and USB port?
  
  bp



  On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz
wrote:
  
  





  Check this out.. 48V 160Ah
Lithium battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking this could be a very
interesting alternative to our current telcom battery based
backup solution. I think I can double my run-time in a
smaller form factor. Looking into costs.
  ï¿½
  
  ï¿½
  Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
  Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
  Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com
  ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..

2015-10-07 Thread Peter Kranz

I wonder why that China module is 50Ah.. while the C provides such a
higher energy density. 170Ah..

 

Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..

 

random thing from china:

http://jycbattery.en.alibaba.com/product/60242486785-801546525/New_4U_48V_50
Ah_Telecom_Backup_LiFePO4_Lithium_ion_polymer_Battery.html


search alibaba for 48V lithium ion and you will find more.


I am highly skeptical of the quality of the cells they're using, considering
the cost difference between "cheap" 18650 cells and Panasonic or Sony.



On 10/7/15 5:16 PM, Bill Prince wrote:



C Technologies: https://www.cdtechno.com/product/lithium/lithium.html



bp

 

On 10/7/2015 5:15 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

I bet it's intended for electric buses and similar. Those are labeled CAN,
guessing CANbus

http://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus


tl;dr: it's a messy clusterfuck networking standard that's worse than RS485
and doesn't speak IP


On 10/7/15 5:11 PM, Bill Prince wrote:



~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a battery? What's available on the
two ethernet ports and USB port?




bp

 

On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:

Check this out.. 48V 160Ah Lithium battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking this
could be a very interesting alternative to our current telcom battery based
backup solution. I think I can double my run-time in a smaller form factor.
Looking into costs.

ï¿½



ï¿½

Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com

ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Sean Heskett

Well you can get this Octo-copter with 15" titanium blades :-/  it's able
to carry a full size studio cinema camera.

http://m.dji.com/product/spreading-wings-s1000-plus

That's a huge flying blender.

Also RC airplanes need the operator within visual range to fly them because
they don't have an on-board computer with GPS.  Modern drones (airplane or
copter) can be miles from the operator because of the on-board flight
computers.

The faa wrote the RC hobby rules in the 1980's when computers were the size
of a suitcase.

-Sean


On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I guess they could define some rules, like in a collision the drone must
> do less damage than a duck.  Make the rotors out of polystyrene.
>
> I've been wondering, are they really worse than model airplanes?  Those
> are made of wood, carry nitro methane for fuel, and fly faster than a
> drone.  To my untrained eye, it would seem like model airplanes would be
> more dangerous to a real plane than a quadrotor drone.
>
> Is it just that quadrotors are easier to fly which opens the airspace to
> more idiots?
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 6:37 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com
>  wrote:
>
> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
> feet could ruin their day.
>
> *From:* Sean Heskett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.
> There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or
> even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a
> bird strike.
>
> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
> that the faa uses ;)
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever
>> they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above
>> 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing
>> rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500',
>> which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed
>> to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>
>>> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
>>> of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
>>> destroy them
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:
>>>
 I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
 feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
 required.



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

 --
 *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
 *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
 *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty


 good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and
 it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful
 with these things from day one

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:

> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15,
> 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
> congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
> and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,”
> the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
> were “not

Re: [AFMUG] Exalt ExtendAir G2 issues?

2015-10-07 Thread George Skorup

Turns out I was wrong. The high side RSL drops to -99. So it looks like 
the low side Tx is stalling and a reboot of that end only will resolve 
it for a while. Guess we'll be replacing the low end.


On 10/7/2015 1:33 AM, George Skorup wrote:
For those of you that have had issues with the ExtendAir G2, what 
exactly were your problems? I have a new 11GHz link that randomly sees 
the BER go high in both directions and it drops out. RSL at both ends 
is normal during this. It looks like multipath or interference, but a 
reboot clears it up most of the time. The link was in an unavailable 
state for about 10 minutes this afternoon. I rebooted both ends and it 
was fine for a few hours. Then it happened again and I only rebooted 
the Tx low end and it was fine after that. Now it appears to be taking 
errors again, but there are no BER alarms or sync losses in the event 
log... yet.


I have dropped the Tx power on both ends to zero for a fade test and 
the modulation dropped a bit, but the BER was fine, so I don't think 
this is interference from another system. Leaning towards one of the 
radios being bad, just not sure which end yet. We've verified 
alignment at each end twice now, so it's not that. RSL at each end is 
also very close to what it should be, within 1-2dB.

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..


  
  
If it matches with the 48V lithium-ion based battery packs I've seen
from battery-pack-assemblers in China, using 18650 cells, it will be
about 4x to 5x more costly than the equivalent $/Wh ratio capacity
of a string composed of 12V 200Ah AGM batteries.


On 10/7/15 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:

  
  
  
  
  
Check this out.. 48V 160Ah Lithium
  battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking this could be a very interesting
  alternative to our current telcom battery based backup
  solution. I think I can double my run-time in a smaller form
  factor. Looking into costs.
ï¿½

ï¿½
Peter Kranz
  www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com
ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..

2015-10-07 Thread Lewis Bergman

Chinese cells bite. In the two way batteries they last about 1/3 as long,
durability wise and never perform to rated capacity. Japanese cells in the
other hand, top notch.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015, 7:33 PM Peter Kranz  wrote:

> I wonder why that China module is 50Ah.. while the C provides such a
> higher energy density. 170Ah..
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com 
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..
>
>
>
> random thing from china:
>
>
> http://jycbattery.en.alibaba.com/product/60242486785-801546525/New_4U_48V_50Ah_Telecom_Backup_LiFePO4_Lithium_ion_polymer_Battery.html
>
>
> search alibaba for 48V lithium ion and you will find more.
>
>
> I am highly skeptical of the quality of the cells they're using,
> considering the cost difference between "cheap" 18650 cells and Panasonic
> or Sony.
>
>
>
> On 10/7/15 5:16 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> C Technologies: https://www.cdtechno.com/product/lithium/lithium.html
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 5:15 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> I bet it's intended for electric buses and similar. Those are labeled CAN,
> guessing CANbus
>
> http://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus
>
>
> tl;dr: it's a messy clusterfuck networking standard that's worse than
> RS485 and doesn't speak IP
>
>
> On 10/7/15 5:11 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> ~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a battery? What's available on
> the two ethernet ports and USB port?
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:
>
> Check this out.. 48V 160Ah Lithium battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking this
> could be a very interesting alternative to our current telcom battery based
> backup solution. I think I can double my run-time in a smaller form factor.
> Looking into costs.
>
> ï¿½
>
> [image: cid:image001.jpg@01D10126.2FE86740]
>
> ï¿½
>
>
> *Peter Kranz*www.UnwiredLtd.com
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
> Mobile: 510-207-
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
> ï¿½
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Bandwidth Overages

2015-10-07 Thread Mark - Myakka Technologies

Matt,

We don't charge yet.  If it is a one time deal we usually let it
slide.  If it is on going we kindly ask them to go to the next level.

Still have some abusers, so i'm currently evaluating different plans.


-- 
Best regards,
 Markmailto:m...@mailmt.com

Myakka Technologies, Inc.
www.MyakkaTech.com

Proud Sponsor of the Myakka City Relay For Life
http://www.RelayForLife.org/MyakkaCityFL

Please Donate at Please Donate at http://www.myakkatech.com/RFL.html
--

Wednesday, October 7, 2015, 8:03:54 PM, you wrote:

M> For those doing bandwidth quotas what and how are you charging for overages?


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

I got it figured out!

So under Ports tab, there is a very small checkbox labeled "PS" for "POE
Smart" and once I removed the checkbox and went back to 24V, the radio
booted right up at 1G.

So it does work apparently with PoE Smart turned off. Hope this won't hurt
the radio in some way.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> So an update here. I am using the Netonix WS-12-250-AC switch running
> firmware 1.3.3 which is the latest stable version. I tried a 5ghz and
> 2.4ghz sync AP and tried turning it on with 24V and 48V on both models and
> cannot get it to work with standard pinouts. This is from the log on the
> Netonix.
>
> Any ideas? Should I downgrade firmware to before Smart POE became a
> feature and try it then? I don't see an option in this firmware to disable
> it. I just want it to work like the guys already have it going ha.
>
>
> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
> Dec 31 19:02:08 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
> cable check
> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
> Open
> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
> PoE
> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
> Dec 31 19:02:43 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
> cable check
> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
> Open
> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
> PoE
> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '48V'
> Dec 31 19:05:39 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
> cable check
> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
> Open
> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
> PoE
> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24VH'
> Dec 31 19:06:01 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
> cable check
> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
> Open
> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
> PoE
> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
> Dec 31 19:07:06 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
> cable check
> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
> Open
> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
> PoE
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I
>> understand I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is
>> different than standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.
>>
>> Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
>> properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
>> and brown pairs but just want to double check here.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>  Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>



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

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Adam Moffett

I guess they could define some rules, like in a collision the drone must 
do less damage than a duck.  Make the rotors out of polystyrene.


I've been wondering, are they really worse than model airplanes? Those 
are made of wood, carry nitro methane for fuel, and fly faster than a 
drone.  To my untrained eye, it would seem like model airplanes would be 
more dangerous to a real plane than a quadrotor drone.


Is it just that quadrotors are easier to fly which opens the airspace to 
more idiots?



On 10/7/2015 6:37 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them 
to 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural 
area, 500 feet could ruin their day.

*From:* Sean Heskett 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my 
airspace.  There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to 
spot a Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a 
lot more damage than a bird strike.
We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary 
equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said 
nasa...national AERONAUTICAL and space administration.  They help 
invent the technology that the faa uses ;)



On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard > wrote:


Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do
whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that
means they stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that
goes along with that.
I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the
existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to
stay under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here)
if, and only if, I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over
my property without permission.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 wrote:

If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with
the caveat of them being over private property without
consent, you should be able to destroy them
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett
 wrote:

I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling,
that's just how I feel. Apply existing regulations where
appropriate. Nothing new is required.



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



*From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm"

*To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
*Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty


good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get
reigned in, and it needs to be legal to shoot them down.
Assholes have been disrespectful with these things from
day one
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim
 wrote:

The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the
“largest civil penalty” it has proposed against an
unmanned aircraft system operator “for endangering the
safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
“careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a
Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil
penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago
alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15,
2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in
some of our most congested airspace and heavily
populated cities [including New York City and
Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various
operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved
aerial photography, and the aircraft were “not
equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan
also failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or
authorization for the operations, the release said.
SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement
letter, it said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.




-- 
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't

see your

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

Missed that. There was so many emails right away I'm sure I missed it on my
cellphone. Thanks!

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:

> See my previous email in this thread:
>
> "Ok - so it seems you need to disable the 'PoE Smart' function on the
> Netonix interface for it to work.  This switch is running 1.3.4."
>
> :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> I got it figured out!
>>
>> So under Ports tab, there is a very small checkbox labeled "PS" for "POE
>> Smart" and once I removed the checkbox and went back to 24V, the radio
>> booted right up at 1G.
>>
>> So it does work apparently with PoE Smart turned off. Hope this won't
>> hurt the radio in some way.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So an update here. I am using the Netonix WS-12-250-AC switch running
>>> firmware 1.3.3 which is the latest stable version. I tried a 5ghz and
>>> 2.4ghz sync AP and tried turning it on with 24V and 48V on both models and
>>> cannot get it to work with standard pinouts. This is from the log on the
>>> Netonix.
>>>
>>> Any ideas? Should I downgrade firmware to before Smart POE became a
>>> feature and try it then? I don't see an option in this firmware to disable
>>> it. I just want it to work like the guys already have it going ha.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>>> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>>> Dec 31 19:02:08 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>>> cable check
>>> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, 
>>> Open, Open
>>> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, 
>>> disabling PoE
>>> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>>> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>>> Dec 31 19:02:43 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>>> cable check
>>> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, 
>>> Open, Open
>>> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, 
>>> disabling PoE
>>> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>>> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '48V'
>>> Dec 31 19:05:39 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>>> cable check
>>> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, 
>>> Open, Open
>>> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, 
>>> disabling PoE
>>> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>>> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24VH'
>>> Dec 31 19:06:01 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>>> cable check
>>> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, 
>>> Open, Open
>>> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, 
>>> disabling PoE
>>> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>>> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>>> Dec 31 19:07:06 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>>> cable check
>>> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, 
>>> Open, Open
>>> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, 
>>> disabling PoE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Darin Steffl 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello all,

 We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I
 understand I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is
 different than standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.

 Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
 properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
 and brown pairs but just want to double check here.

 Thanks

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

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


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

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

2015-10-07 Thread TJ Trout

Does everything power normally prior to the fuse blowing? Does the ptp600
power and ping? Is the fuse properly sized?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:22 PM, David  wrote:

> We have to use the duracom dc dc isolators for them but no issues once we
> do it.
> Basically same thing using meanwell product.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/07/2015 03:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>
> no, will try-
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> Have you tried isolating the PTP600 with a DC/DC converter (Meanwell RSD,
>> etc) in between the rectifier and PIDU?
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Gino Villarini 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate the issue
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating
 surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?

 *From:* Gino Villarini 
 *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
 Help!!

 i think so, afaik is floating ground

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common
> ground?
>
> *From:* Gino Villarini 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
> Help!!
>
> So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
>
> this is the setup:
>
> Emerson Rectifier feeding:
>
> Telco System MPLS router
> Planet Fiber SW
> 2 Netonix DC Switches
> 2 SAF POE Injectors
> 2 PTP600 PIDUs
>
> AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground
>
> We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
>
> all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a
> WBMGF SS on the rack
>
> So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect
> the PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding
> the Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..
>
> im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?
>
>
>


>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

I see the hawk-vs-drone and kangaroo-vs-drone videos on Youtube, and think you 
just need a trained hawk.  Or kangaroo.  I don’t know what happened to that 
guy’s drone, officer, I think it had a run-in with some wildlife.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Also charge folks to be the drone pilot so  it pits human against human.
I would pay...

Hmmm, what do cheap drones cost?

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:32 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Perhaps if you posted “no drone zone” like no trespassing signs
I think it would be fun to shoot at them.  I am wondering if it would be 
possible to create a line of drones with titanium armor over the expensive bits 
(motors, batteries, electronics) and have lots of spare parts.  Make a shooting 
range where folks can pay to blast a drone out of the sky.  Costs more if they 
have a camera...

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to 
destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission, and 
everyone is happy.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:

  Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to 250 
feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500 feet 
could ruin their day.  

  From: Sean Heskett 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

  As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.  
There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or even a 
king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a bird 
strike. 

  We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary equipment 
to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national AERONAUTICAL  
and space administration.  They help invent the technology that the faa uses ;)

  On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard  wrote:

Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever 
they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above 
500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.

I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing 
rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500', which 
it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed to shoot 
them down if they fly over my property without permission.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat of 
them being over private property without consent, you should be able to destroy 
them

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett 
 wrote:

I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I 
feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is required.

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

From: "That One Guy /sarcasm" 

To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty 

good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and 
it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful with 
these things from day one

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim 
 wrote:

  The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil 
penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator “for 
endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a “careless or 
reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday announcement. The proposed $1.9 
million civil penalty against SkyPan International of Chicago alleges that 
between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15, 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized 
operations “in some of our most congested airspace and heavily populated 
cities [including New York City and Chicago], violating airspace regulations 
and various operating rules,” the FAA said. The flights involved aerial 
photography, and the aircraft were “not equipped with a two-way radio, 
transponder, and altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also 
failed to obtain a certificate of waiver or

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..

~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a battery? What's available on 
the two ethernet ports and USB port?


bp


On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:


Check this out.. 48V 160Ah Lithium battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking this 
could be a very interesting alternative to our current telcom battery 
based backup solution. I think I can double my run-time in a smaller 
form factor. Looking into costs.


*Peter Kranz
*www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

That's definitely true.  The times are usually detailed when you order them.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Oct 8, 2015 12:06 AM, "George Skorup"  wrote:

> I remember Ken pointing out that even fast-blow fuses have a time delay.
> If they're running right up around the limit, it does take time to open. I
> think the last thing you want to do is put in a bigger fuse if you suspect
> return path and/or polarity issues. Mixed voltages and -/+ return can
> really be a PITA to figure out sometimes. I would second the suggestion for
> popping in a Mean Well RSD if only to figure out if you have mixed chassis
> grounds. Cat5 shields come to mind. Are you passing the shields through the
> WB SS's?
>
> On 10/7/2015 10:41 PM, TJ Trout wrote:
>
> Does everything power normally prior to the fuse blowing? Does the ptp600
> power and ping? Is the fuse properly sized?
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:22 PM, David  wrote:
>
>> We have to use the duracom dc dc isolators for them but no issues once we
>> do it.
>> Basically same thing using meanwell product.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/07/2015 03:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>> no, will try-
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> Have you tried isolating the PTP600 with a DC/DC converter (Meanwell
>>> RSD, etc) in between the rectifier and PIDU?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Gino Villarini 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not replicate the issue

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or other insulating
> surface, can you see –48 VDC on their cases or chassis?
>
> *From:* Gino Villarini 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
> Help!!
>
> i think so, afaik is floating ground
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600 connected to your common
>> ground?
>>
>> *From:* Gino Villarini 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please
>> Help!!
>>
>> So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
>>
>> this is the setup:
>>
>> Emerson Rectifier feeding:
>>
>> Telco System MPLS router
>> Planet Fiber SW
>> 2 Netonix DC Switches
>> 2 SAF POE Injectors
>> 2 PTP600 PIDUs
>>
>> AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating ground
>>
>> We have this gear connected to the Netonix: Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
>>
>> all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is terminated in a
>> WBMGF SS on the rack
>>
>> So this is the issue, we migrated everything to DC, when we connect
>> the PTP600 PIDU to the rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding
>> the Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some 30-45 secs..
>>
>> im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?
>>
>>
>>
>
>


>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Bandwidth Overages

2015-10-07 Thread Jeremy

300GB per month, .50 cents per GB thereafter

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Matt  wrote:

> For those doing bandwidth quotas what and how are you charging for
> overages?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..


  
  
random thing from china:

http://jycbattery.en.alibaba.com/product/60242486785-801546525/New_4U_48V_50Ah_Telecom_Backup_LiFePO4_Lithium_ion_polymer_Battery.html


search alibaba for 48V lithium ion and you will find more.


I am highly skeptical of the quality of the cells they're using,
considering the cost difference between "cheap" 18650 cells and
Panasonic or Sony.



On 10/7/15 5:16 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

  
  C Technologies: https://www.cdtechno.com/product/lithium/lithium.html
  bp



  On 10/7/2015 5:15 PM, Eric Kuhnke
wrote:
  
  

I bet it's intended for electric buses and similar. Those are
labeled CAN, guessing CANbus

http://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus


tl;dr: it's a messy clusterfuck networking standard that's worse
than RS485 and doesn't speak IP


On 10/7/15 5:11 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

  
  ~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a battery? What's
  available on the two ethernet ports and USB port?
  
  bp



  On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz
wrote:
  
  





  Check this out.. 48V 160Ah
Lithium battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking this could be a
very interesting alternative to our current telcom
battery based backup solution. I think I can double my
run-time in a smaller form factor. Looking into costs.
  ï¿½
  
  ï¿½
  Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
  Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
  Mobile: 510-207-
  pkr...@unwiredltd.com
  ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

Next question,

The voltage range of these AP's is 22V to 56V with the stock poe putting
out 30V.

Would you recommend us set the Netonix switch to 24V or 48V? The runs are
short at 20 feet so I'm assuming 24V would be perfectly fine unless there
is some advantage to going up to 48V output maybe for longer runs.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> I got it figured out!
>
> So under Ports tab, there is a very small checkbox labeled "PS" for "POE
> Smart" and once I removed the checkbox and went back to 24V, the radio
> booted right up at 1G.
>
> So it does work apparently with PoE Smart turned off. Hope this won't hurt
> the radio in some way.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> So an update here. I am using the Netonix WS-12-250-AC switch running
>> firmware 1.3.3 which is the latest stable version. I tried a 5ghz and
>> 2.4ghz sync AP and tried turning it on with 24V and 48V on both models and
>> cannot get it to work with standard pinouts. This is from the log on the
>> Netonix.
>>
>> Any ideas? Should I downgrade firmware to before Smart POE became a
>> feature and try it then? I don't see an option in this firmware to disable
>> it. I just want it to work like the guys already have it going ha.
>>
>>
>> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>> Dec 31 19:02:08 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>> Dec 31 19:02:43 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '48V'
>> Dec 31 19:05:39 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24VH'
>> Dec 31 19:06:01 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>> Dec 31 19:07:06 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I
>>> understand I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is
>>> different than standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.
>>>
>>> Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
>>> properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
>>> and brown pairs but just want to double check here.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> --
>>> Darin Steffl
>>> Minnesota WiFi
>>> www.mnwifi.com
>>> 507-634-WiFi
>>>  Like us on Facebook
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>  Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>



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

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Why can't they do both? at least have a simple web GUI to do basic
configuration... I suppose they just have to be different for the sake of
being different.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> I (for one) think you're wrong. But I pretty much loath most things apple,
> so there's that. I spent almost an hour with an experienced apple user (and
> an uber geek) trying to find a log file on an AirPort, but they keep
> removing features from the AirPort. The AirPort is probably running a
> stripped-down version of IOS, but it's pretty opaque from my perspective.
> Why it can't be a simple web GUI like everyone else on the planet is beyond
> me. Plus the look & feel changes with almost every new release. Makes it
> pretty much impossible to talk someone through it over the phone.
>
> PITA POS if you ask me.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 2:48 PM, Brett A Mansfield wrote:
>
> I think the app isn't very good, but the tool on a PC or Mac is really
> good, intuitive, and works well.  I see the app as a web GUI on steroids.
> It just works. I think the more you play with it the more features you
> realize it has. I think a lot of my counterparts here on this list just
> don't like it because it's Apple, but I could be wrong.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Bill Prince < 
> part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Totally true. Apple makes an AirPort tool of sorts for Windows, but it
> sucks major bronto.
>
> What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad.
>
> bp
> 
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 11:21 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> My guys hate the Apple routers because they can’t be configured from a web
> GUI, you need the AirPort software on your computer.  At least that’s what
> they tell me.
>
>
> *From:* Brett A Mansfield 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:08 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>
> For my customers that want me to sell them or manage their solution I
> charge an extra $25 install fee and $5/mo. I use edgerouters as the router
> and an airport express in bridge mode for the wireless. I can throw on as
> many of the airports as needed to get the job done for an extra fee.
>
> It works really well. I haven't had any customer complaint with it. They
> don't have to power cycle anything ever either.
>
> I buy the airport express in bulk refurbished direct from Apple. If they
> don't have them refurbished I just buy new, but that hasn't happened yet.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson < 
> sterl...@avative.net> wrote:
>
> This is my biggest gripe right now.
>
>
>
> The more internet you provide to them, the worse this problem is.
>
>
>
> I think my contractors are selling mid-range $100 linksys routers.
>
> I’m not sure that’s the best thing.
>
>
>
> I too need to find a handful of routers that really get the job done right.
>
>
>
> I’ve noticed the Apple routers tend to be pretty good, especially if they
> have Apple Ecosystem/devices.
>
> And apple extenders seem to work better with their apple environment and
> are way easy for the customer to set up.
>
>
>
> Other than Apple, I usually recommend a router with external antennas.
>
> And TRY to get our people to NOT install the routers in the basement under
> all the metal ducting, lol!
>
>
>
> Ideally they are installed on the main floor in a somewhat central
> location.
>
>
>
> What I am considering is selling a NON-wireless router for our end point
> inside the house near the clustered wiring.
>
> Then programming any router they get in BRIDGE mode.
>
>
>
> I still don’t like doing that because the router features are something
> most of these people want anyways.
>
>
>
> But with my speeds I would almost just rather make sure they have a wired
> Gigabit Ethernet router that I can manage and I know is capable, then let
> them buy however many wireless routers they need to fill in gaps all over
> their house (or, preferably, ONE powerful wireless router).
>
>
>
> I just don’t want to be stuck changing port forwarding crap etc.
>
>
>
> What I really wish was that a separate company would do this for a one
> time, or monthly charge and handle all their router woes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Glen Waldrop
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 11:39 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>
>
>
> Thanks for the input guys.
>
> I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on occasion,
> but my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.
>
> I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD or
> something.
>
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Justin Wilson - MTIN 
>
> *To:*

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

That is not a bad idea... I would pay to do that.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Also charge folks to be the drone pilot so  it pits human against human.
> I would pay...
>
> Hmmm, what do cheap drones cost?
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Perhaps if you posted “no drone zone” like no trespassing signs
> I think it would be fun to shoot at them.  I am wondering if it would be
> possible to create a line of drones with titanium armor over the expensive
> bits (motors, batteries, electronics) and have lots of spare parts.  Make a
> shooting range where folks can pay to blast a drone out of the sky.  Costs
> more if they have a camera...
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to
> destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission,
> and everyone is happy.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
>> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
>> feet could ruin their day.
>>
>> *From:* Sean Heskett 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>
>> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my
>> airspace.  There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a
>> Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more
>> damage than a bird strike.
>>
>> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
>> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
>> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
>> that the faa uses ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do
>>> whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they
>>> stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the
>>> existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay
>>> under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if,
>>> I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over my property without
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>>
 If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
 of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
 destroy them

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:

> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
> required.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
> *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
>
> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in,
> and it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been
> disrespectful with these things from day one
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:
>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system
>> operator “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones
>> in a “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
>> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
>> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 
>> 15,
>> 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
>> congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
>> and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating 
>> rules,”
>> the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
>> were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
>> altitude-reporting

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

So an update here. I am using the Netonix WS-12-250-AC switch running
firmware 1.3.3 which is the latest stable version. I tried a 5ghz and
2.4ghz sync AP and tried turning it on with 24V and 48V on both models and
cannot get it to work with standard pinouts. This is from the log on the
Netonix.

Any ideas? Should I downgrade firmware to before Smart POE became a feature
and try it then? I don't see an option in this firmware to disable it. I
just want it to work like the guys already have it going ha.


Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Dec 31 19:02:08 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is
starting cable check
Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open,
Open, Open
Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling PoE
Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Dec 31 19:02:43 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is
starting cable check
Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open,
Open, Open
Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling PoE
Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '48V'
Dec 31 19:05:39 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is
starting cable check
Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open,
Open, Open
Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling PoE
Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24VH'
Dec 31 19:06:01 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is
starting cable check
Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open,
Open, Open
Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling PoE
Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
Dec 31 19:07:06 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is
starting cable check
Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open,
Open, Open
Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling PoE



On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I
> understand I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is
> different than standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.
>
> Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
> properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
> and brown pairs but just want to double check here.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>



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

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

Model airplanes are rarely flown beyond line of sight from the operator.
With a modern GPS fed flight controller you can program a set of waypoints
into a medium/large quad, hex or Octo that will take it way beyond where
you can see it.
On Oct 7, 2015 7:14 PM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> I guess they could define some rules, like in a collision the drone must
> do less damage than a duck.  Make the rotors out of polystyrene.
>
> I've been wondering, are they really worse than model airplanes?  Those
> are made of wood, carry nitro methane for fuel, and fly faster than a
> drone.  To my untrained eye, it would seem like model airplanes would be
> more dangerous to a real plane than a quadrotor drone.
>
> Is it just that quadrotors are easier to fly which opens the airspace to
> more idiots?
>
>
> On 10/7/2015 6:37 PM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
>
> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
> feet could ruin their day.
>
> *From:* Sean Heskett 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my airspace.
> There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a Cessna or
> even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more damage than a
> bird strike.
>
> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
> that the faa uses ;)
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do whatever
>> they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they stay above
>> 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the existing
>> rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay under 500',
>> which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if, I'm allowed
>> to shoot them down if they fly over my property without permission.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>
>>> If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
>>> of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
>>> destroy them
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:
>>>
 I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
 feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
 required.



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

 --
 *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
 *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
 *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty


 good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in, and
 it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been disrespectful
 with these things from day one

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:

> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system operator
> “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones in a
> “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
> International of Chicago alleges that between March 21, 2012, and Dec. 15,
> 2014, SkyPan conducted 65 unauthorized operations “in some of our most
> congested airspace and heavily populated cities [including New York City
> and Chicago], violating airspace regulations and various operating rules,”
> the FAA said. The flights involved aerial photography, and the aircraft
> were “not equipped with a two-way radio, transponder, and
> altitude-reporting equipment,” the FAA said. SkyPan also failed to obtain 
> a
> certificate of waiver or authorization for the operations, the release
> said. SkyPan has 30 days to respond to the FAA’s enforcement letter, it
> said. SkyPan didn’t have an immediate comment.
>



 --
 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.


>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>

[AFMUG] Bandwidth Overages

2015-10-07 Thread Matt

For those doing bandwidth quotas what and how are you charging for overages?

Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty

2015-10-07 Thread Jeremy

I think you are on to something there Chuck!  Interactive drone shooting.
It would definitely be a hit here in Utah...

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

> I see the hawk-vs-drone and kangaroo-vs-drone videos on Youtube, and think
> you just need a trained hawk.  Or kangaroo.  I don’t know what happened to
> that guy’s drone, officer, I think it had a run-in with some wildlife.
>
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:33 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Also charge folks to be the drone pilot so  it pits human against human.
> I would pay...
>
> Hmmm, what do cheap drones cost?
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:32 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Perhaps if you posted “no drone zone” like no trespassing signs
> I think it would be fun to shoot at them.  I am wondering if it would be
> possible to create a line of drones with titanium armor over the expensive
> bits (motors, batteries, electronics) and have lots of spare parts.  Make a
> shooting range where folks can pay to blast a drone out of the sky.  Costs
> more if they have a camera...
>
> *From:* Mathew Howard 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:29 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
> Seems to me just make them stay below real aircraft and make it legal to
> destroy or catch them if they're over private property without permission,
> and everyone is happy.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Airport exclusion zone would be important.  I would like to limit them to
>> 250 feet.  If someone is practicing emergency landings in a rural area, 500
>> feet could ruin their day.
>>
>> *From:* Sean Heskett 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 4:27 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>>
>> As a pilot I really don't want a drone above 500 feet agl in my
>> airspace.  There is already a lot going on and it's hard enough to spot a
>> Cessna or even a king air let alone a tiny drone that can do a lot more
>> damage than a bird strike.
>>
>> We need the faa and nasa to define rules and design the necessary
>> equipment to keep the national airspace safe.  (Yes I said nasa...national
>> AERONAUTICAL  and space administration.  They help invent the technology
>> that the faa uses ;)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, October 7, 2015, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly my feelings. I'm perfectly fine with allowing them to do
>>> whatever they want following existing aircraft rules, but that means they
>>> stay above 500', be licensed and everything else that goes along with that.
>>> I'm also fine with commercial drones being allowed to follow the
>>> existing rules for private/hobby (which would mean they'd have to stay
>>> under 500', which it doesn't sound like was the case here) if, and only if,
>>> I'm allowed to shoot them down if they fly over my property without
>>> permission.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:13 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>>
 If they had to follow existing aircraft rules, perfect with the caveat
 of them being over private property without consent, you should be able to
 destroy them

 On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Mike Hammett <
 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af...@ics-il.net');> wrote:

> I have the complete opposite position. Not trolling, that's just how I
> feel. Apply existing regulations where appropriate. Nothing new is 
> required.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> --
> *From: *"That One Guy /sarcasm" <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thatoneguyst...@gmail.com');>
> *To: *javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:31:29 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] FAA levies $1.9 M civil penalty
>
>
> good, I hope they go bankrupt. These drones need to get reigned in,
> and it needs to be legal to shoot them down. Assholes have been
> disrespectful with these things from day one
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Hardy, Tim <
> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tha...@comsearch.com');> wrote:
>
>> The Federal Aviation Administration wants to levy the “largest civil
>> penalty” it has proposed against an unmanned aircraft system
>> operator “for endangering the safety of our airspace” by operating drones
>> in a “careless or reckless manner,” the agency said in a Tuesday
>> announcement. The proposed $1.9 million civil penalty against SkyPan
>> International of Chicago alleges that

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..


C Technologies: https://www.cdtechno.com/product/lithium/lithium.html

bp


On 10/7/2015 5:15 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I bet it's intended for electric buses and similar. Those are labeled 
CAN, guessing CANbus


http://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus


tl;dr: it's a messy clusterfuck networking standard that's worse than 
RS485 and doesn't speak IP



On 10/7/15 5:11 PM, Bill Prince wrote:
~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a battery? What's available 
on the two ethernet ports and USB port?


bp


On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:


Check this out.. 48V 160Ah Lithium battery module.. Iï¿½m thinking 
this could be a very interesting alternative to our current telcom 
battery based backup solution. I think I can double my run-time in a 
smaller form factor. Looking into costs.


ï¿½

ï¿½

*Peter Kranz
*www.UnwiredLtd.com 
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com 

ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

2015-10-07 Thread Work

A mikrotik or AirRouter are the only 2 good options now days in the low price 
range heard good things about netgear NightHawk but too pricey if you want 
something cheap easy to config good range and it have to ability to do anything 
your SM's can and be able to monitor them just like a SM go with AirRouter if 
you want something bit more pricey harder for end user to config but be able to 
debug anything without driving out there go with mikrotik... If you want to 
just tell them buy something from the store tell them get a netgear NightHawk






—
Sent from Mailbox

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:

> I (for one) think you're wrong. But I pretty much loath most things 
> apple, so there's that. I spent almost an hour with an experienced apple 
> user (and an uber geek) trying to find a log file on an AirPort, but 
> they keep removing features from the AirPort. The AirPort is probably 
> running a stripped-down version of IOS, but it's pretty opaque from my 
> perspective. Why it can't be a simple web GUI like everyone else on the 
> planet is beyond me. Plus the look & feel changes with almost every new 
> release. Makes it pretty much impossible to talk someone through it over 
> the phone.
> PITA POS if you ask me.
> bp
> 
> On 10/7/2015 2:48 PM, Brett A Mansfield wrote:
>> I think the app isn't very good, but the tool on a PC or Mac is really 
>> good, intuitive, and works well.  I see the app as a web GUI on 
>> steroids. It just works. I think the more you play with it the more 
>> features you realize it has. I think a lot of my counterparts here on 
>> this list just don't like it because it's Apple, but I could be wrong.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Brett A Mansfield
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Bill Prince > > wrote:
>>
>>> Totally true. Apple makes an AirPort tool of sorts for Windows, but 
>>> it sucks major bronto.
>>>
>>> What's even worse is trying to admin an AirPort from an ipad.
>>>
>>> bp
>>> 
>>>
>>> On 10/7/2015 11:21 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
 My guys hate the Apple routers because they can’t be configured from 
 a web GUI, you need the AirPort software on your computer.  At least 
 that’s what they tell me.
 *From:* Brett A Mansfield 
 *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:08 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com 
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
 For my customers that want me to sell them or manage their solution 
 I charge an extra $25 install fee and $5/mo. I use edgerouters as 
 the router and an airport express in bridge mode for the wireless. I 
 can throw on as many of the airports as needed to get the job done 
 for an extra fee.
 It works really well. I haven't had any customer complaint with it. 
 They don't have to power cycle anything ever either.
 I buy the airport express in bulk refurbished direct from Apple. If 
 they don't have them refurbished I just buy new, but that hasn't 
 happened yet.

 Thank you,
 Brett A Mansfield

 On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Sterling Jacobson 
  wrote:

> This is my biggest gripe right now.
>
> The more internet you provide to them, the worse this problem is.
>
> I think my contractors are selling mid-range $100 linksys routers.
>
> I’m not sure that’s the best thing.
>
> I too need to find a handful of routers that really get the job 
> done right.
>
> I’ve noticed the Apple routers tend to be pretty good, especially 
> if they have Apple Ecosystem/devices.
>
> And apple extenders seem to work better with their apple 
> environment and are way easy for the customer to set up.
>
> Other than Apple, I usually recommend a router with external antennas.
>
> And TRY to get our people to NOT install the routers in the 
> basement under all the metal ducting, lol!
>
> Ideally they are installed on the main floor in a somewhat central 
> location.
>
> What I am considering is selling a NON-wireless router for our end 
> point inside the house near the clustered wiring.
>
> Then programming any router they get in BRIDGE mode.
>
> I still don’t like doing that because the router features are 
> something most of these people want anyways.
>
> But with my speeds I would almost just rather make sure they have a 
> wired Gigabit Ethernet router that I can manage and I know is 
> capable, then let them buy however many wireless routers they need 
> to fill in gaps all over their house (or, preferably, ONE powerful 
> wireless router).
>
> I just don’t want to be stuck changing port forwarding crap etc.
>
> What I really wish was that a separate company would do this for a

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

See my previous email in this thread:

"Ok - so it seems you need to disable the 'PoE Smart' function on the
Netonix interface for it to work.  This switch is running 1.3.4."

:)

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> I got it figured out!
>
> So under Ports tab, there is a very small checkbox labeled "PS" for "POE
> Smart" and once I removed the checkbox and went back to 24V, the radio
> booted right up at 1G.
>
> So it does work apparently with PoE Smart turned off. Hope this won't hurt
> the radio in some way.
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Darin Steffl 
> wrote:
>
>> So an update here. I am using the Netonix WS-12-250-AC switch running
>> firmware 1.3.3 which is the latest stable version. I tried a 5ghz and
>> 2.4ghz sync AP and tried turning it on with 24V and 48V on both models and
>> cannot get it to work with standard pinouts. This is from the log on the
>> Netonix.
>>
>> Any ideas? Should I downgrade firmware to before Smart POE became a
>> feature and try it then? I don't see an option in this firmware to disable
>> it. I just want it to work like the guys already have it going ha.
>>
>>
>> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:02:06 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>> Dec 31 19:02:08 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:02:13 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:02:41 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>> Dec 31 19:02:43 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:02:48 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:05:37 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '48V'
>> Dec 31 19:05:39 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:05:44 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:05:59 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24VH'
>> Dec 31 19:06:01 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:06:06 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Configuration changed by 192.168.1.22
>> Dec 31 19:07:04 UI: Port 3 PoE: changed from 'Off' to '24V'
>> Dec 31 19:07:06 switch[1352]: PoE enabled on port 3, PoE Smart is starting 
>> cable check
>> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 cable check results: Short, Open, Open, 
>> Open
>> Dec 31 19:07:10 switch[1352]: Port 3 failed PoE Smart cable check, disabling 
>> PoE
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Darin Steffl 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I
>>> understand I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is
>>> different than standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.
>>>
>>> Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
>>> properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
>>> and brown pairs but just want to double check here.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> --
>>> Darin Steffl
>>> Minnesota WiFi
>>> www.mnwifi.com
>>> 507-634-WiFi
>>>  Like us on Facebook
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Darin Steffl
>> Minnesota WiFi
>> www.mnwifi.com
>> 507-634-WiFi
>>  Like us on Facebook
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site! ground loop? Please Help!!

2015-10-07 Thread George Skorup

I remember Ken pointing out that even fast-blow fuses have a time delay. 
If they're running right up around the limit, it does take time to open. 
I think the last thing you want to do is put in a bigger fuse if you 
suspect return path and/or polarity issues. Mixed voltages and -/+ 
return can really be a PITA to figure out sometimes. I would second the 
suggestion for popping in a Mean Well RSD if only to figure out if you 
have mixed chassis grounds. Cat5 shields come to mind. Are you passing 
the shields through the WB SS's?

On 10/7/2015 10:41 PM, TJ Trout wrote:
Does everything power normally prior to the fuse blowing? Does the 
ptp600 power and ping? Is the fuse properly sized?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:22 PM, David > wrote:

We have to use the duracom dc dc isolators for them but no issues
once we do it.
Basically same thing using meanwell product.

On 10/07/2015 03:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:

no, will try-

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Josh Baird > wrote:

Have you tried isolating the PTP600 with a DC/DC converter
(Meanwell RSD, etc) in between the rectifier and PIDU?

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Gino Villarini
> wrote:

ill check, but we did a bench test and it did not
replicate the issue

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Chuck McCown
> wrote:

If you put the PIDU and PTP600 on a cardboard box or
other insulating surface, can you see –48 VDC on
their cases or chassis?
*From:* Gino Villarini 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:17 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site!
ground loop? Please Help!!
i think so, afaik is floating ground
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Chuck McCown
> wrote:

Is the chassis of the PIDU or the PTP600
connected to your common ground?
*From:* Gino Villarini 
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:14 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Issue with a -48 vdc Site!
ground loop? Please Help!!
So we are moving a site form AC to DC -48
this is the setup:
Emerson Rectifier feeding:
Telco System MPLS router
Planet Fiber SW
2 Netonix DC Switches
2 SAF POE Injectors
2 PTP600 PIDUs
AFAIK all the mentioned gear above are floating
ground
We have this gear connected to the Netonix:
Airfiber24, Epmp, PMP450
all wireless gear is using shielded cable that is
terminated in a WBMGF SS on the rack
So this is the issue, we migrated everything to
DC, when we connect the PTP600 PIDU to the
rectifier, the fuse on the emerson output feeding
the Netonix blows..not instantly.. it takes some
30-45 secs..
im scratching my head on this one... any ideas?

Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery backup development..

I wonder if that thing from China is any good if they build it with
Matsushita (Panasonic) 18650 cells in packs. Does the battery
management controller suck?

4RU high for 2.4 kWh capacity is not so bad compared to a lead acid
battery shelf. If they really want to sell that thing to telecoms it
needs to have center mounting points, to install in standard two
post 19" racks, with half the weight hanging out over the front,
half over the rear.

On 10/7/15 5:41 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

Chinese cells bite. In the two way batteries they
last about 1/3 as long, durability wise and never perform to
rated capacity. Japanese cells in the other hand, top notch.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015, 7:33 PM Peter Kranz
wrote:

I wonder why that China
module is 50Ah.. while the C provides such a
higher energy density. 170Ah..

Peter Kranz
www.UnwiredLtd.com
Desk: 510-868-1614 x100
Mobile: 510-207-
pkr...@unwiredltd.com

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On
Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 5:27 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interesting battery
backup development..

random thing from china:

http://jycbattery.en.alibaba.com/product/60242486785-801546525/New_4U_48V_50Ah_Telecom_Backup_LiFePO4_Lithium_ion_polymer_Battery.html

search alibaba for 48V lithium ion and you will find
more.

I am highly skeptical of the quality of the cells
they're using, considering the cost difference between
"cheap" 18650 cells and Panasonic or Sony.

On 10/7/15 5:16 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

C Technologies: https://www.cdtechno.com/product/lithium/lithium.html

On 10/7/2015 5:15 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

I bet it's intended for electric buses and similar.
Those are labeled CAN, guessing CANbus

http://www.kvaser.com/about-can/the-can-protocol/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN_bus

tl;dr: it's a messy clusterfuck networking standard
that's worse than RS485 and doesn't speak IP

On 10/7/15 5:11 PM, Bill Prince wrote:

~~ 7,000 watt-hours. Not bad. Is it just a
battery? What's available on the two ethernet
ports and USB port?

On 10/7/2015 4:59 PM, Peter Kranz wrote:

Check this out.. 48V 160Ah Lithium battery
module.. Iï¿½m thinking this could be a very
interesting alternative to our current telcom
battery based backup solution. I think I can
double my run-time in a smaller form factor.
Looking into costs.
ï¿½

Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

2015-10-07 Thread Patrick Leary

Especially from 4chan types like this kid seems to be.

Patrick Leary, Telrad
727-501-3735

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

as long as your terms of service are in place, there really isn't anything he 
can do, especially if the contract is in the parents name anyway. Absolution is 
a current movie about a guy who is killing people, Id say that you had a threat 
of homicide against you. Terroristic threats is envogue for law enforcement 
arrests right now.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
> wrote:

hah, what other WISPS in the area?
- Original Message -
From: Glen Waldrop
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

I'm nice too, but the second my customer threatens me or anyone in my employ or 
otherwise acts like a prick, nice goes out the window, communications cease and 
they're blacklisted, like permanently.

I wouldn't even reply, just turn him off and schedule picking up the equipment.

Might even share his name with other ISP's in the area so they have a heads up. 
Crazy and self entitled is usually a lifestyle, not a single mistake.

- Original Message -
From: CBB - Jay Fuller
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

We're nice.  It's one of the reasons customers like us.

- Original Message -
From: Ken Hohhof
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

How did someone get $210 past due?

Just turn off his service in 5 days.  If your customers own the radio, you’re 
done.  If not, you have to decide whether to kiss it goodbye or go and retrieve 
it, and whether to have the police accompany you in case of incident.  If it’s 
a 900 FSK, those are worth so little now, I’d kiss it goodbye.

From: CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com ; 
memb...@wispa.org
Subject: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

but not really an issue.  but.it is.

so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents facilitated his 
installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another town.  he removed 
his credit card billing info from the portal but did not disconnect his 
account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's started getting 
warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, he's sending us (in 
reply to the email) - well - here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g

What?No.

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
From: 
voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
To: aicom

Hello  Waldrep ,

This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and your service 
will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is $210.00. You can 
submit payment and update your payment details through our customer portal 
located on our website at http://www.cyberbroadband.net , or by calling our 
office at (256) 734-1077.

If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies and ignore 
this email.

Thank you for your business!

--
Cyber Broadband

then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most recently with 
this -

- Original Message -
From: x x x
To: adm.net
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:31 AM
Subject: Urgent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55HQS9vlpE

Consider all that’s happened over the past few months. If you’re unaware of 
what I’m referring to, that’s an even worse situation.
I suggest you explain what makes you think you’re entitled to discontinue my 
service. Otherwise, we can begin negotiations on the damage done to my 
equipment and CLASSIFIED data.

We could move beyond that entirely and discuss better options for your 
business. Either, you know enough to know that this isn’t going to be as easy 
as you were hoping it would be, or you haven’t been paying attention.

Let me know if you have any questions.   Also, as I said before, I suggest you 
leave our connection active. If I don’t receive a response from you today, I 
will move ahead with my plans for absolution.

should i report this guy for mental instability?

bottom linei wish we could be notified via email or something when someone 
removes their billing

Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

Jay, I was talking other ISP, not just WISP.

I have a good working relationship with the local cable company and Bellsouth 
back in the day. We kinda kept each other in the loop, particularly when the 
customer was disconnected due to federal offenses over the Internet.

We started adding rude idiots into that list as well. It was funny when I had a 
CATV customer get smart with me over the phone, they disconnected him, 
Bellsouth had already blacklisted him and then he called me, not knowing I was 
the tech he just chewed out.



  - Original Message - 
  From: Patrick Leary 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:21 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude


  Especially from 4chan types like this kid seems to be.

   

  Patrick Leary, Telrad

  727-501-3735

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
  Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 3:10 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

   

  as long as your terms of service are in place, there really isn't anything he 
can do, especially if the contract is in the parents name anyway. Absolution is 
a current movie about a guy who is killing people, Id say that you had a threat 
of homicide against you. Terroristic threats is envogue for law enforcement 
arrests right now.

   

  On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:14 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller  
wrote:

 

hah, what other WISPS in the area?

  - Original Message - 

  From: Glen Waldrop 

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:44 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

   

  I'm nice too, but the second my customer threatens me or anyone in my 
employ or otherwise acts like a prick, nice goes out the window, communications 
cease and they're blacklisted, like permanently.

   

  I wouldn't even reply, just turn him off and schedule picking up the 
equipment.

  Might even share his name with other ISP's in the area so they have a 
heads up. Crazy and self entitled is usually a lifestyle, not a single mistake.

   

   

- Original Message - 

From: CBB - Jay Fuller 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:41 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

 

 

We're nice.  It's one of the reasons customers like us.

 

  - Original Message - 

  From: Ken Hohhof 

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:25 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

   

  How did someone get $210 past due?

   

  Just turn off his service in 5 days.  If your customers own the 
radio, you’re done.  If not, you have to decide whether to kiss it goodbye or 
go and retrieve it, and whether to have the police accompany you in case of 
incident.  If it’s a 900 FSK, those are worth so little now, I’d kiss it 
goodbye.

   

   

  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 

  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:01 PM

  To: af@afmug.com ; memb...@wispa.org 

  Subject: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

   

   

   

  but not really an issue.  but.it is.

   

  so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents 
facilitated his installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another 
town.  he removed his credit card billing info from the portal but did not 
disconnect his account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's started 
getting warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, he's sending us 
(in reply to the email) - well - here's an example:

   

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g 

   

  What?No.


--

  Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
  Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
  From: voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
  To: aicom

  Hello  Waldrep , 

  This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and 
your service will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is 
$210.00. You can submit payment and update your payment details through our 
customer portal located on our website at http://www.cyberbroadband.net , or by 
calling our office at (256) 734-1077.

  If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies 
and ignore this email.

  Thank you for your business!

  --
  Cyber Broadband

   

  then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most 
recently with this

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

I've had the Netgear 3700 series completely blow out the 2.4GHz band for 60 
seconds every 5 minutes, two different ones. Not sure of the exact model, been 
a little while since I fooled with one.

MT assured us on the forum that they are seeking UNII certifications. I'm not 
banking on it and buying a ton of their hardware based on a promise, but I'm 
keeping a few on hand for specific shots.


  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?


  If a customer insists on a recommendation, I say every router you can buy in 
the store has problems, but the least problematic seems to be Netgear as long 
as you get at least a 3000 series.  I have seen a high field failure rate on 
the WNR2000, and they can die a slow lingering flakey death rather than just 
falling over dead.  Probably a WNDR3700 if you want gigabit and 3400 if you 
don’t.  Some customers get to the store and get a 4500 because it’s on sale or 
$10 more.  I like having gigabit ports but many customers these days don’t have 
a single wired device.  The Netgear routers come with the WiFi already secured, 
they can be set to wireless access point mode, and they have a lifetime 
warranty (but who is going to go through the trouble).  On the downside some 
laptops with Intel 802.11ac WiFi refuse to play nice with the Netgears, and the 
PPPoE default has to be changed from dial on demand.

  I will no longer sell routers to customers, many years of bad experiences.  
But I will lease a managed Mikrotik (a nice one – typically a RB951G-2HnD or 
RB2011) for $5/month including free replacement.  I won’t sell a Mikrotik to a 
customer for them to manage unless the customer is an IT professional.

  This does mean I don’t have a dual band (much less 802.11ac) managed router 
solution.  Given our rural customer base, the 2.4 only WiFi usually works out 
better than dual band.  Occasionally I wish for dual band so we could segregate 
some weak WiFi clients (like Dropcams) onto their own band.  Mikrotik doesn’t 
seem to want to deal with getting equipment FCC approved in 5 GHz.

  Some of the routers customers have bought that have been problematic:  
Cradlepoint, Securifi, Amped Wireless (at least the range extenders).


  From: Brett A Mansfield 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:30 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

  I've had very bad luck with Belkin, D-Link, Asus (the worst), linksys, and 
low end netgear. I've had great success with the higher end netgear and the 3rd 
through 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme. Prior to the 3rd gen and the 6th gen 
(latest) airports are junk. So I'm with you, pretty much every consumer grade 
router is trash now.

  Thank you, 
  Brett A Mansfield

  On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:


Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?

I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality 
seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block specific 
outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

.. again, no comments about the Cambium cnPilot stuff?  Even from WISPs that 
primarily use Cambium gear?

Sounds like a decent feature set; PoE, ATA, centralized management, dual band, 
etc.  Haven't seen any in action, but at least it sounds promising.

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
> 
> I've had the Netgear 3700 series completely blow out the 2.4GHz band for 60 
> seconds every 5 minutes, two different ones. Not sure of the exact model, 
> been a little while since I fooled with one.
> 
> MT assured us on the forum that they are seeking UNII certifications. I'm not 
> banking on it and buying a ton of their hardware based on a promise, but I'm 
> keeping a few on hand for specific shots.
>  
>  
> - Original Message -
> From: Ken Hohhof
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
> 
> If a customer insists on a recommendation, I say every router you can buy in 
> the store has problems, but the least problematic seems to be Netgear as long 
> as you get at least a 3000 series.  I have seen a high field failure rate on 
> the WNR2000, and they can die a slow lingering flakey death rather than just 
> falling over dead.  Probably a WNDR3700 if you want gigabit and 3400 if you 
> don’t.  Some customers get to the store and get a 4500 because it’s on sale 
> or $10 more.  I like having gigabit ports but many customers these days don’t 
> have a single wired device.  The Netgear routers come with the WiFi already 
> secured, they can be set to wireless access point mode, and they have a 
> lifetime warranty (but who is going to go through the trouble).  On the 
> downside some laptops with Intel 802.11ac WiFi refuse to play nice with the 
> Netgears, and the PPPoE default has to be changed from dial on demand.
>  
> I will no longer sell routers to customers, many years of bad experiences.  
> But I will lease a managed Mikrotik (a nice one – typically a RB951G-2HnD or 
> RB2011) for $5/month including free replacement.  I won’t sell a Mikrotik to 
> a customer for them to manage unless the customer is an IT professional.
>  
> This does mean I don’t have a dual band (much less 802.11ac) managed router 
> solution.  Given our rural customer base, the 2.4 only WiFi usually works out 
> better than dual band.  Occasionally I wish for dual band so we could 
> segregate some weak WiFi clients (like Dropcams) onto theirown band.  
> Mikrotik doesn’t seem to want to deal with getting equipment FCC approved in 
> 5 GHz.
>  
> Some of the routers customers have bought that have been problematic:  
> Cradlepoint, Securifi, Amped Wireless (at least the range extenders).
>  
>  
> From: Brett A Mansfield
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:30 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>  
> I've had very bad luck with Belkin, D-Link, Asus (the worst), linksys, and 
> low end netgear. I've had great success with the higher end netgear and the 
> 3rd through 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme. Prior to the 3rd gen and the 6th 
> gen (latest) airports are junk. So I'm with you, pretty much every consumer 
> grade router is trash now.
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
>> 
>> Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?
>> 
>> I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality seems 
>> to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block specific 
>> outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

camium isn't known for their centralized management of anything being a
good investment

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:

> .. again, no comments about the Cambium cnPilot stuff?  Even from WISPs
> that primarily use Cambium gear?
>
> Sounds like a decent feature set; PoE, ATA, centralized management, dual
> band, etc.  Haven't seen any in action, but at least it sounds promising.
>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
>
> I've had the Netgear 3700 series completely blow out the 2.4GHz band for
> 60 seconds every 5 minutes, two different ones. Not sure of the exact
> model, been a little while since I fooled with one.
>
> MT assured us on the forum that they are seeking UNII certifications. I'm
> not banking on it and buying a ton of their hardware based on a promise,
> but I'm keeping a few on hand for specific shots.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Ken Hohhof 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>
> If a customer insists on a recommendation, I say every router you can buy
> in the store has problems, but the least problematic seems to be Netgear as
> long as you get at least a 3000 series.  I have seen a high field failure
> rate on the WNR2000, and they can die a slow lingering flakey death rather
> than just falling over dead.  Probably a WNDR3700 if you want gigabit and
> 3400 if you don’t.  Some customers get to the store and get a 4500 because
> it’s on sale or $10 more.  I like having gigabit ports but many customers
> these days don’t have a single wired device.  The Netgear routers come with
> the WiFi already secured, they can be set to wireless access point mode,
> and they have a lifetime warranty (but who is going to go through the
> trouble).  On the downside some laptops with Intel 802.11ac WiFi refuse to
> play nice with the Netgears, and the PPPoE default has to be changed from
> dial on demand.
>
> I will no longer sell routers to customers, many years of bad
> experiences.  But I will lease a managed Mikrotik (a nice one – typically a
> RB951G-2HnD or RB2011) for $5/month including free replacement.  I won’t
> sell a Mikrotik to a customer for them to manage unless the customer is an
> IT professional.
>
> This does mean I don’t have a dual band (much less 802.11ac) managed
> router solution.  Given our rural customer base, the 2.4 only WiFi usually
> works out better than dual band.  Occasionally I wish for dual band so we
> could segregate some weak WiFi clients (like Dropcams) onto their own
> band.  Mikrotik doesn’t seem to want to deal with getting equipment FCC
> approved in 5 GHz.
>
> Some of the routers customers have bought that have been problematic:
> Cradlepoint, Securifi, Amped Wireless (at least the range extenders).
>
>
> *From:* Brett A Mansfield 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:30 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>
> I've had very bad luck with Belkin, D-Link, Asus (the worst), linksys, and
> low end netgear. I've had great success with the higher end netgear and the
> 3rd through 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme. Prior to the 3rd gen and the 6th
> gen (latest) airports are junk. So I'm with you, pretty much every consumer
> grade router is trash now.
>
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
>
> Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?
>
> I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality
> seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block
> specific outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...
>
>


-- 
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] Consumer routers?

Agreed.. Hopefully this new stuff will be better.  Maybe not.

> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:42 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm  
> wrote:
> 
> camium isn't known for their centralized management of anything being a good 
> investment
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>> .. again, no comments about the Cambium cnPilot stuff?  Even from WISPs that 
>> primarily use Cambium gear?
>> 
>> Sounds like a decent feature set; PoE, ATA, centralized management, dual 
>> band, etc.  Haven't seen any in action, but at least it sounds promising.
>> 
>> On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
>> 
>>> I've had the Netgear 3700 series completely blow out the 2.4GHz band for 60 
>>> seconds every 5 minutes, two different ones. Not sure of the exact model, 
>>> been a little while since I fooled with one.
>>> 
>>> MT assured us on the forum that they are seeking UNII certifications. I'm 
>>> not banking on it and buying a ton of their hardware based on a promise, 
>>> but I'm keeping a few on hand for specific shots.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Ken Hohhof
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>>> 
>>> If a customer insists on a recommendation, I say every router you can buy 
>>> in the store has problems, but the least problematic seems to be Netgear as 
>>> long as you get at least a 3000 series.  I have seen a high field failure 
>>> rate on the WNR2000, and they can die a slow lingering flakey death rather 
>>> than just falling over dead.  Probably a WNDR3700 if you want gigabit and 
>>> 3400 if you don’t.  Some customers get to the store and get a 4500 because 
>>> it’s on sale or $10 more.  I like having gigabit ports but many customers 
>>> these days don’t have a single wired device.  The Netgear routers come with 
>>> the WiFi already secured, they can be set to wireless access point mode, 
>>> and they have a lifetime warranty (but who is going to go through the 
>>> trouble).  On the downside some laptops with Intel 802.11ac WiFi refuse to 
>>> play nice with the Netgears, and the PPPoE default has to be changed from 
>>> dial on demand.
>>>  
>>> I will no longer sell routers to customers, many years of bad experiences.  
>>> But I will lease a managed Mikrotik (a nice one – typically a RB951G-2HnD 
>>> or RB2011) for $5/month including free replacement.  I won’t sell a 
>>> Mikrotik to a customer for them to manage unless the customer is an IT 
>>> professional.
>>>  
>>> This does mean I don’t have a dual band (much less 802.11ac) managed router 
>>> solution.  Given our rural customer base, the 2.4 only WiFi usually works 
>>> out better than dual band.  Occasionally I wish for dual band so we could 
>>> segregate some weak WiFi clients (like Dropcams) onto their own band.  
>>> Mikrotik doesn’t seem to want to deal with getting equipment FCC approved 
>>> in 5 GHz.
>>>  
>>> Some of the routers customers have bought that have been problematic:  
>>> Cradlepoint, Securifi, Amped Wireless (at least the range extenders).
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: Brett A Mansfield
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:30 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>>>  
>>> I've had very bad luck with Belkin, D-Link, Asus (the worst), linksys, and 
>>> low end netgear. I've had great success with the higher end netgear and the 
>>> 3rd through 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme. Prior to the 3rd gen and the 6th 
>>> gen (latest) airports are junk. So I'm with you, pretty much every consumer 
>>> grade router is trash now.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Brett A Mansfield
>>> 
 On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
 
 Are there any consumer routers that don't suck  these days?
 
 I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality 
 seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block 
 specific outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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] Consumer routers?

Never messed with it.

As someone mentioned above, if it isn't on store shelves it might as well not 
exist for 90% of our customers. Very few can wait 3 days shipping for a quality 
part when they could have a horribly unstable WIFI router today.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Josh Baird 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 2:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

  .. again, no comments about the Cambium cnPilot stuff?  Even from WISPs that 
primarily use Cambium gear?

  Sounds like a decent feature set; PoE, ATA, centralized management, dual 
band, etc.  Haven't seen any in action, but at least it sounds promising.

  On Oct 7, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

I've had the Netgear 3700 series completely blow out the 2.4GHz band for 60 
seconds every 5 minutes, two different ones. Not sure of the exact model, been 
a little while since I fooled with one.

MT assured us on the forum that they are seeking UNII certifications. I'm 
not banking on it and buying a ton of their hardware based on a promise, but 
I'm keeping a few on hand for specific shots.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

  If a customer insists on a recommendation, I say every router you can buy 
in the store has problems, but the least problematic seems to be Netgear as 
long as you get at least a 3000 series.  I have seen a high field failure rate 
on the WNR2000, and they can die a slow lingering flakey death rather than just 
falling over dead.  Probably a WNDR3700 if you want gigabit and 3400 if you 
don’t.  Some customers get to the store and get a 4500 because it’s on sale or 
$10 more.  I like having gigabit ports but many customers these days don’t have 
a single wired device.  The Netgear routers come with the WiFi already secured, 
they can be set to wireless access point mode, and they have a lifetime 
warranty (but who is going to go through the trouble).  On the downside some 
laptops with Intel 802.11ac WiFi refuse to play nice with the Netgears, and the 
PPPoE default has to be changed from dial on demand.

  I will no longer sell routers to customers, many years of bad 
experiences.  But I will lease a managed Mikrotik (a nice one – typically a 
RB951G-2HnD or RB2011) for $5/month including free replacement.  I won’t sell a 
Mikrotik to a customer for them to manage unless the customer is an IT 
professional.

  This does mean I don’t have a dual band (much less 802.11ac) managed 
router solution.  Given our rural customer base, the 2.4 only WiFi usually 
works out better than dual band.  Occasionally I wish for dual band so we could 
segregate some weak WiFi clients (like Dropcams) onto their own band.  Mikrotik 
doesn’t seem to want to deal with getting equipment FCC approved in 5 GHz.

  Some of the routers customers have bought that have been problematic:  
Cradlepoint, Securifi, Amped Wireless (at least the range extenders).

  From: Brett A Mansfield 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:30 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

  I've had very bad luck with Belkin, D-Link, Asus (the worst), linksys, 
and low end netgear. I've had great success with the higher end netgear and the 
3rd through 5th gen Apple AirPort Extreme. Prior to the 3rd gen and the 6th gen 
(latest) airports are junk. So I'm with you, pretty much every consumer grade 
router is trash now.

  Thank you, 
  Brett A Mansfield

  On Oct 7, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?

I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality 
seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block specific 
outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...

Re: [AFMUG] Has anyone seen an S-Pipe that sticks into a satellite mount?

2015-10-07 Thread Rory Conaway

Funny, I tried multiple searches, didn’t find it.  Just got home from a 16-hour 
day though so, probably wasn’t thinking too clearly.

Thanks.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 10:33 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Has anyone seen an S-Pipe that sticks into a satellite 
mount?

Do you mean this thing?
http://bfy.tw/2A21

We use them all the time.  Great idea for keeping antennas tucked away, close 
to the building.

Sean

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
I’ve seen it in the past, just can’t find it again.  Any help would be 
appreciated.

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

“Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep your foot 
on first. “~Frederick B. Wilcox

Re: [AFMUG] Has anyone seen an S-Pipe that sticks into a satellite mount?

2015-10-07 Thread Rory Conaway

Found that one but other pictures had that included with a wall mount.  Thanks.

rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 11:13 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Has anyone seen an S-Pipe that sticks into a satellite 
mount?

This?

http://www.summitsource.com/images/products/MTP2ST.jpg

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

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Sean Heskett 
> wrote:
Do you mean this thing?
http://bfy.tw/2A21

We use them all the time.  Great idea for keeping antennas tucked away, close 
to the building.

Sean

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
I’ve seen it in the past, just can’t find it again.  Any help would be 
appreciated.

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

“Progress always involves risks. You can't steal second base and keep your foot 
on first. “~Frederick B. Wilcox

[AFMUG] PTP600 on -48v

Please refresh my mind on how to connect a ptp600 on a -48 system?

Re: [AFMUG] 450d 13.3 on 12.2.2 AP

2015-10-07 Thread Carl Peterson

Thanks Mat.

I was talking about the thread that George posted.
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/450d-losing-sync/td-p/45012



On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Matt Mangriotis <
matt.mangrio...@cambiumnetworks.com> wrote:

> Alignment tone was broken in 13.3.  This is in the release notes.
> Recommend you move to R13.4.
>
>
>
> I am unsure of the “manufacturing issue” you refer to.  We have had a
> couple reports that 450d units were affected by the same manufacturing
> quality issue that affected some other 5 GHz 450 SMs (they share the same
> electrical PCB).  If you see the “ADI Communications Failure” as referenced
> in the FSB (even if the serial numbers don’t appear in this list), please
> let us know right away.
>
>
>
>
> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/Field-Service-Bulletin-ADI-Catalina-R1-Chip-not-supported/m-p/43211
>
>
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl Peterson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:49 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 450d 13.3 on 12.2.2 AP
>
>
>
> Doh.  Anyone from Cambium want to chime in on the scope of the
> manufacturing issue?
>
> FYI, We installed one today on an AP running  13.2.1.3 and it seems to
> work fine but the aim tool isn't working.  SM running 13.3 out of the box.
> Is there an issue with the aim tone on these?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:10 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
> Uh oh?
>
> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/450d-losing-sync/td-p/45012
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2015 2:41 PM, David wrote:
>
> Yeah, better move to 13.2 I have no issues with it across 14 of our sites.
>
> On 10/06/2015 10:59 AM, Brian Sullivan wrote:
>
> 13.1.2 and above brings a lot of needed performance, I would upgrade at
> least to that.
>
> On 10/6/2015 10:41 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
>
> Is there an issue with 13.3 SMs on 12.2.2 APs?  We are testing the 450d
> and it looks like it is connecting but really isn't.
>
>
>
> Any chance this is a polarity issue?  All of our dished SMs are connecting
> fine.  I seem to remember an issue with some 450APs having H and V swapped
> internally.
>
>
> LUID: 037 - [0a-00-3e-xx-xx-xx]
>  State: IN SESSION
> (Encrypt Disabled)
>   Site Name: NAME
>   PMP 450 MIMO OFDM
>   Software Version: CANOPY 13.3
>   FPGA Version: 112414 (DES, Sched, US/ETSI) P11
>   Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay: 2950 ns, 29 bits (approximately 0.274
> miles (1449 feet))
>   Session Count: 4, Reg Count: 4, Re-Reg Count: 0, Session Uptime: 24
> d, 21:26:07
>   Power Level : -54.2 dBm  Signal Strength Ratio : 7.0 dB V - H dB
>   Signal to Noise Ratio: 14 dB V / 0 dB H
>   Sustained Uplink Data Rate (AP): 65000 (kbps)
>   Uplink Burst Allocation (AP): 250 (kbit)
>   Sustained Downlink Data Rate (AP): 65000 (kbps)
>   Downlink Burst Allocation (AP): 250 (kbit)
>   Broadcast/Multicast Allocation (AP): 5 (kbit)
>   Max Burst Uplink Rate (D): 0 (kbit)
>   Max Burst Downlink Rate (AP): 0 (kbit)
>   Low Priority Uplink CIR (D): 0 (kbps)
>   Low Priority Downlink CIR (D)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> (410) 637-3707
>



-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707

Re: [AFMUG] 450d 13.3 on 12.2.2 AP

2015-10-07 Thread Carl Peterson

Doh.  Anyone from Cambium want to chime in on the scope of the
manufacturing issue?

FYI, We installed one today on an AP running  13.2.1.3 and it seems to work
fine but the aim tool isn't working.  SM running 13.3 out of the box.  Is
there an issue with the aim tone on these?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:10 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Uh oh?
>
> http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/450d-losing-sync/td-p/45012
>
>
> On 10/6/2015 2:41 PM, David wrote:
>
> Yeah, better move to 13.2 I have no issues with it across 14 of our sites.
>
>
> On 10/06/2015 10:59 AM, Brian Sullivan wrote:
>
> 13.1.2 and above brings a lot of needed performance, I would upgrade at
> least to that.
>
>
> On 10/6/2015 10:41 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
>
> Is there an issue with 13.3 SMs on 12.2.2 APs?  We are testing the 450d
> and it looks like it is connecting but really isn't.
>
> Any chance this is a polarity issue?  All of our dished SMs are connecting
> fine.  I seem to remember an issue with some 450APs having H and V swapped
> internally.
>
> LUID: 037 - [0a-00-3e-xx-xx-xx]
>  State: IN SESSION
> (Encrypt Disabled)
>   Site Name: NAME
>   PMP 450 MIMO OFDM
>   Software Version: CANOPY 13.3
>   FPGA Version: 112414 (DES, Sched, US/ETSI) P11
>   Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay: 2950 ns, 29 bits (approximately 0.274
> miles (1449 feet))
>   Session Count: 4, Reg Count: 4, Re-Reg Count: 0, Session Uptime: 24
> d, 21:26:07
>   Power Level : -54.2 dBm  Signal Strength Ratio : 7.0 dB V - H dB
>   Signal to Noise Ratio: 14 dB V / 0 dB H
>   Sustained Uplink Data Rate (AP): 65000 (kbps)
>   Uplink Burst Allocation (AP): 250 (kbit)
>   Sustained Downlink Data Rate (AP): 65000 (kbps)
>   Downlink Burst Allocation (AP): 250 (kbit)
>   Broadcast/Multicast Allocation (AP): 5 (kbit)
>   Max Burst Uplink Rate (D): 0 (kbit)
>   Max Burst Downlink Rate (AP): 0 (kbit)
>   Low Priority Uplink CIR (D): 0 (kbps)
>   Low Priority Downlink CIR (D)
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Carl Peterson

*PORT NETWORKS*

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707

Re: [AFMUG] 450d 13.3 on 12.2.2 AP

2015-10-07 Thread Matt Mangriotis

Alignment tone was broken in 13.3.  This is in the release notes.  Recommend 
you move to R13.4.

I am unsure of the “manufacturing issue” you refer to.  We have had a couple 
reports that 450d units were affected by the same manufacturing quality issue 
that affected some other 5 GHz 450 SMs (they share the same electrical PCB).  
If you see the “ADI Communications Failure” as referenced in the FSB (even if 
the serial numbers don’t appear in this list), please let us know right away.

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/Field-Service-Bulletin-ADI-Catalina-R1-Chip-not-supported/m-p/43211


Matt

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Carl Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:49 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450d 13.3 on 12.2.2 AP

Doh.  Anyone from Cambium want to chime in on the scope of the manufacturing 
issue?

FYI, We installed one today on an AP running  13.2.1.3 and it seems to work 
fine but the aim tool isn't working.  SM running 13.3 out of the box.  Is there 
an issue with the aim tone on these?

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:10 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
Uh oh?

http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/PMP-450/450d-losing-sync/td-p/45012

On 10/6/2015 2:41 PM, David wrote:
Yeah, better move to 13.2 I have no issues with it across 14 of our sites.

On 10/06/2015 10:59 AM, Brian Sullivan wrote:
13.1.2 and above brings a lot of needed performance, I would upgrade at least 
to that.

On 10/6/2015 10:41 AM, Carl Peterson wrote:
Is there an issue with 13.3 SMs on 12.2.2 APs?  We are testing the 450d and it 
looks like it is connecting but really isn't.

Any chance this is a polarity issue?  All of our dished SMs are connecting 
fine.  I seem to remember an issue with some 450APs having H and V swapped 
internally.

LUID: 037 - [0a-00-3e-xx-xx-xx] 
State: IN SESSION (Encrypt Disabled)
  Site Name: NAME
  PMP 450 MIMO OFDM
  Software Version: CANOPY 13.3
  FPGA Version: 112414 (DES, Sched, US/ETSI) P11
  Session Timeout: 0, AirDelay: 2950 ns, 29 bits (approximately 0.274 miles 
(1449 feet))
  Session Count: 4, Reg Count: 4, Re-Reg Count: 0, Session Uptime: 24 d, 
21:26:07
  Power Level : -54.2 dBm  Signal Strength Ratio : 7.0 dB V - H dB
  Signal to Noise Ratio: 14 dB V / 0 dB H
  Sustained Uplink Data Rate (AP): 65000 (kbps)
  Uplink Burst Allocation (AP): 250 (kbit)
  Sustained Downlink Data Rate (AP): 65000 (kbps)
  Downlink Burst Allocation (AP): 250 (kbit)
  Broadcast/Multicast Allocation (AP): 5 (kbit)
  Max Burst Uplink Rate (D): 0 (kbit)
  Max Burst Downlink Rate (AP): 0 (kbit)
  Low Priority Uplink CIR (D): 0 (kbps)
  Low Priority Downlink CIR (D)






--

Carl Peterson

PORT NETWORKS

401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 637-3707

Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

How did someone get $210 past due?

Just turn off his service in 5 days.  If your customers own the radio, you’re 
done.  If not, you have to decide whether to kiss it goodbye or go and retrieve 
it, and whether to have the police accompany you in case of incident.  If it’s 
a 900 FSK, those are worth so little now, I’d kiss it goodbye.


From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com ; memb...@wispa.org 
Subject: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude



but not really an issue.  but.it is.

so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents facilitated his 
installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another town.  he removed 
his credit card billing info from the portal but did not disconnect his 
account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's started getting 
warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, he's sending us (in 
reply to the email) - well - here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g 


What?No.




Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
From: voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
To: aicom

Hello  Waldrep , 

This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and your service 
will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is $210.00. You can 
submit payment and update your payment details through our customer portal 
located on our website at http://www.cyberbroadband.net , or by calling our 
office at (256) 734-1077.

If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies and ignore 
this email.

Thank you for your business!

--
Cyber Broadband


then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most recently with 
this - 


- Original Message - 
From: x x x 
To: adm.net 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:31 AM
Subject: Urgent!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55HQS9vlpE

Consider all thats happened over the past few months. If youre unaware of 
what Im referring to, thats an even worse situation. 
I suggest you explain what makes you think youre entitled to discontinue my 
service. Otherwise, we can begin negotiations on the damage done to my 
equipment and CLASSIFIED data.   

We could move beyond that entirely and discuss better options for your 
business. Either, you know enough to know that this isnt going to be as easy 
as you were hoping it would be, or you havent been paying attention.

Let me know if you have any questions.   Also, as I said before, I suggest you 
leave our connection active. If I dont receive a response from you today, I 
will move ahead with my plans for absolution.



should i report this guy for mental instability?

bottom linei wish we could be notified via email or something when someone 
removes their billing informationi dunnojust its not the first time 
that has happened

that is all...

Re: [AFMUG] [WISPA Members] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

2015-10-07 Thread Jay Weekley

You forgot one. "If this message is ignored and/or the service 
discontinued - there will be many other options and/or avenues for the 
conclusion of this matter, all of which "Cyber Broadband" will be 
involved in forever."


CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:

but not really an issue.  but.it is.
so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents facilitated 
his installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another town.  
he removed his credit card billing info from the portal but did not 
disconnect his account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's 
started getting warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, 
he's sending us (in reply to the email) - well - here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g

What?No.


Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
From: voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
To: aicom

Hello  Waldrep ,

This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and your 
service will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is 
$210.00. You can submit payment and update your payment details 
through our customer portal located on our website at 
http://www.cyberbroadband.net , or by calling our office at (256) 
734-1077.


If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies and 
ignore this email.


Thank you for your business!

--
Cyber Broadband
then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most recently 
with this -

- Original Message -
*From:* x x x
*To:* adm.net
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:31 AM
*Subject:* Urgent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55HQS9vlpE
Consider all thatï¿½s happened over the past few months. If youï¿½re 
unaware of what Iï¿½m referring to, thatï¿½s an even worse situation.
I suggest you explain what makes you think youï¿½re entitled to 
discontinue my service. Otherwise, we can begin negotiations on the 
damage done to my equipment and CLASSIFIED data.
We could move beyond that entirely and discuss better options for your 
business. Either, you know enough to know that this isnï¿½t going to be 
as easy as you were hoping it would be, or you havenï¿½t been paying 
attention.
Let me know if you have any questions.   Also, as I said before, I 
suggest you leave our connection active. If I donï¿½t receive a response 
from you today, I will move ahead with my plans for absolution.

should i report this guy for mental instability?
bottom linei wish we could be notified via email or something when 
someone removes their billing informationi dunnojust its not 
the first time that has happened

that is all...


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

Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

2015-10-07 Thread Larry Smith

Sounds like he has no idea at all that you are referring to the original 
wireless connection (that he stoppped paying for) and he is 
referring/thinking about whatever his current internet connection is.

-- 
Larry Smith
lesm...@ecsis.net

On Wed October 7 2015 12:01, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
> but not really an issue.  but.it is.
>
> so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents facilitated his
> installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another town.  he
> removed his credit card billing info from the portal but did not disconnect
> his account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's started getting
> warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, he's sending us (in
> reply to the email) - well - here's an example:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g
>
>
> What?No.
>
>
>
> ---
>- Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
> Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
> From: voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
> To: aicom
>
> Hello  Waldrep ,
>
> This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and your
> service will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is
> $210.00. You can submit payment and update your payment details through our
> customer portal located on our website at http://www.cyberbroadband.net ,
> or by calling our office at (256) 734-1077.
>
> If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies and
> ignore this email.
>
> Thank you for your business!
>
> --
> Cyber Broadband
>
>
> then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most recently with
> this -
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: x x x
> To: adm.net
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:31 AM
> Subject: Urgent!
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55HQS9vlpE
>
> Consider all that's happened over the past few months. If you're unaware of
> what I'm referring to, that's an even worse situation. I suggest you
> explain what makes you think you're entitled to discontinue my service.
> Otherwise, we can begin negotiations on the damage done to my equipment and
> CLASSIFIED data.
>
> We could move beyond that entirely and discuss better options for your
> business. Either, you know enough to know that this isn't going to be as
> easy as you were hoping it would be, or you haven't been paying attention.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.   Also, as I said before, I suggest
> you leave our connection active. If I don't receive a response from you
> today, I will move ahead with my plans for absolution.
>
>
>
> should i report this guy for mental instability?
>
> bottom linei wish we could be notified via email or something when
> someone removes their billing informationi dunnojust its not the
> first time that has happened
>
> that is all...

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Thanks for the input guys.

I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on occasion, but my 
responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.

I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD or 
something. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: Justin Wilson - MTIN 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?


  My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a customer router 
costs you in support and service calls.  We have several clients who are doing 
one of a couple things.


  Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month.  This is typically 
a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up the wireless, manages the 
router, and other such functions.   This allows for a reference point on the 
customer side for testing, etc.  


  The other way to approach this is if you don’t want mess with router 
configuration some folks are including a “modem” that is essentially a hAP or 
750.  This is just in bridge mode or is the PPPOE client.  The customer then is 
free to plug in their own router if they so desire, but you still have a 
reference point from the customer side.  If you need a customer to bypass their 
router you simply ask them to plug into port5 or whatever on your “modem”. That 
port can be setup to do DHCP or whatever.


  You have to look at how much support consumer routers is costing you.  Many 
folks look at the cost of the routers and the cost to install them or replace 
them.  But if it cuts your support calls by 30% that might mean the difference 
between hiring another person, or other “soft” costs.




  Justin Wilson
  j...@mtin.net


  ---
  http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
  xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth


  http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
  Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric


On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:


Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?

I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality 
seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block specific 
outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...

Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

2015-10-07 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller

We're nice.  It's one of the reasons customers like us.

  - Original Message - 
  From: Ken Hohhof 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:25 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

  How did someone get $210 past due?

  Just turn off his service in 5 days.  If your customers own the radio, you’re 
done.  If not, you have to decide whether to kiss it goodbye or go and retrieve 
it, and whether to have the police accompany you in case of incident.  If it’s 
a 900 FSK, those are worth so little now, I’d kiss it goodbye.

  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:01 PM
  To: af@afmug.com ; memb...@wispa.org 
  Subject: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude

  but not really an issue.  but.it is.

  so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents facilitated his 
installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another town.  he removed 
his credit card billing info from the portal but did not disconnect his 
account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's started getting 
warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, he's sending us (in 
reply to the email) - well - here's an example:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g 

  What?No.

--
  Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
  Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
  From: voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
  To: aicom

  Hello  Waldrep , 

  This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and your 
service will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is $210.00. 
You can submit payment and update your payment details through our customer 
portal located on our website at http://www.cyberbroadband.net , or by calling 
our office at (256) 734-1077.

  If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies and ignore 
this email.

  Thank you for your business!

  --
  Cyber Broadband

  then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most recently with 
this - 

  - Original Message - 
  From: x x x 
  To: adm.net 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:31 AM
  Subject: Urgent!

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55HQS9vlpE

  Consider all thats happened over the past few months. If youre unaware of 
what Im referring to, thats an even worse situation. 
  I suggest you explain what makes you think youre entitled to discontinue my 
service. Otherwise, we can begin negotiations on the damage done to my 
equipment and CLASSIFIED data.   

  We could move beyond that entirely and discuss better options for your 
business. Either, you know enough to know that this isnt going to be as easy 
as you were hoping it would be, or you havent been paying attention.

  Let me know if you have any questions.   Also, as I said before, I suggest 
you leave our connection active. If I dont receive a response from you today, 
I will move ahead with my plans for absolution.

  should i report this guy for mental instability?

  bottom linei wish we could be notified via email or something when 
someone removes their billing informationi dunnojust its not the first 
time that has happened

  that is all...

Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issue....yah, get a life dude

I'm nice too, but the second my customer threatens me or anyone in my employ or 
otherwise acts like a prick, nice goes out the window, communications cease and 
they're blacklisted, like permanently.

I wouldn't even reply, just turn him off and schedule picking up the equipment.

Might even share his name with other ISP's in the area so they have a heads up. 
Crazy and self entitled is usually a lifestyle, not a single mistake.


  - Original Message - 
  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude



  We're nice.  It's one of the reasons customers like us.

- Original Message - 
From: Ken Hohhof 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude


How did someone get $210 past due?

Just turn off his service in 5 days.  If your customers own the radio, 
you’re done.  If not, you have to decide whether to kiss it goodbye or go and 
retrieve it, and whether to have the police accompany you in case of incident.  
If it’s a 900 FSK, those are worth so little now, I’d kiss it goodbye.


From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com ; memb...@wispa.org 
Subject: [AFMUG] today's customer issueyah, get a life dude



but not really an issue.  but.it is.

so we must have had a teenager as a customer.  his parents facilitated his 
installation but he eventually grew up and moved to another town.  he removed 
his credit card billing info from the portal but did not disconnect his 
account.  now his account has moved delinquent and he's started getting 
warnings his account will be disconnected.  in return, he's sending us (in 
reply to the email) - well - here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KTrtzOY-g 


What?No.




Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 03:01:47 -0500
Subject: Cyber Broadband Bill Due Reminder - 5 days
From: voicemailgr...@cyberbroadband.net
To: aicom

Hello  Waldrep , 

This is a reminder that your Cyber Broadband bill is past due and your 
service will be disconnected within 5 days. Your current due amount is $210.00. 
You can submit payment and update your payment details through our customer 
portal located on our website at http://www.cyberbroadband.net , or by calling 
our office at (256) 734-1077.

If you have already submitted payment, please accept our apologies and 
ignore this email.

Thank you for your business!

--
Cyber Broadband


then he continued to reply to the same warning message - most recently with 
this - 


- Original Message - 
From: x x x 
To: adm.net 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 6:31 AM
Subject: Urgent!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w55HQS9vlpE

Consider all thats happened over the past few months. If youre unaware of 
what Im referring to, thats an even worse situation. 
I suggest you explain what makes you think youre entitled to discontinue 
my service. Otherwise, we can begin negotiations on the damage done to my 
equipment and CLASSIFIED data.   

We could move beyond that entirely and discuss better options for your 
business. Either, you know enough to know that this isnt going to be as easy 
as you were hoping it would be, or you havent been paying attention.

Let me know if you have any questions.   Also, as I said before, I suggest 
you leave our connection active. If I dont receive a response from you today, 
I will move ahead with my plans for absolution.



should i report this guy for mental instability?

bottom linei wish we could be notified via email or something when 
someone removes their billing informationi dunnojust its not the first 
time that has happened

that is all...

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

Just to be clear, thanks for confirming what I already thought, they all 
suck... lol

  - Original Message - 
  From: Glen Waldrop 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:38 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

  Thanks for the input guys.

  I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on occasion, but 
my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.

  I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD or 
something. 

- Original Message - 
From: Justin Wilson - MTIN 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a customer router 
costs you in support and service calls.  We have several clients who are doing 
one of a couple things.

Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month.  This is 
typically a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up the wireless, 
manages the router, and other such functions.   This allows for a reference 
point on the customer side for testing, etc.  

The other way to approach this is if you don’t want mess with router 
configuration some folks are including a “modem” that is essentially a hAP or 
750.  This is just in bridge mode or is the PPPOE client.  The customer then is 
free to plug in their own router if they so desire, but you still have a 
reference point from the customer side.  If you need a customer to bypass their 
router you simply ask them to plug into port5 or whatever on your “modem”. That 
port can be setup to do DHCP or whatever.

You have to look at how much support consumer routers is costing you.  Many 
folks look at the cost of the routers and the cost to install them or replace 
them.  But if it cuts your support calls by 30% that might mean the difference 
between hiring another person, or other “soft” costs.

Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

---
http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric

  On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

  Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?

  I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality 
seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block specific 
outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?

AirRouters seem to be OK.  Is that consumer enough for you?

Dlink generally treats customers well, at least better than other brands
(though around the country everyone has their own good/bad brands).


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

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:

> Just to be clear, thanks for confirming what I already thought, they all
> suck... lol
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Glen Waldrop 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>
> Thanks for the input guys.
>
> I was mostly looking at what to recommend. I'd rather help on occasion,
> but my responsibility ends at the CAT5 coming out of the POE.
>
> I've been bouncing around the idea of a $5 a month managed RB951 2HnD or
> something.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Justin Wilson - MTIN 
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:51 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?
>
> My take on this is you have to look at what supporting a customer router
> costs you in support and service calls.  We have several clients who are
> doing one of a couple things.
>
> Some are selling a managed router service for $X a month.  This is
> typically a Mikrotik the ISP has access to.  The ISP sets up the wireless,
> manages the router, and other such functions.   This allows for a reference
> point on the customer side for testing, etc.
>
> The other way to approach this is if you don’t want mess with router
> configuration some folks are including a “modem” that is essentially a hAP
> or 750.  This is just in bridge mode or is the PPPOE client.  The customer
> then is free to plug in their own router if they so desire, but you still
> have a reference point from the customer side.  If you need a customer to
> bypass their router you simply ask them to plug into port5 or whatever on
> your “modem”. That port can be setup to do DHCP or whatever.
>
> You have to look at how much support consumer routers is costing you.
>  Many folks look at the cost of the routers and the cost to install them or
> replace them.  But if it cuts your support calls by 30% that might mean the
> difference between hiring another person, or other “soft” costs.
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
>
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:58 AM, Glen Waldrop  wrote:
>
> Are there any consumer routers that don't suck these days?
>
> I used to recommend Linksys/Cisco, but since the Belkin buyout quality
> seems to be going down. They jink with teh firewall and I can't block
> specific outgoing traffic, can't remote admin anymore, etc...
>
>
>

[AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

Hello all,

We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I understand
I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is different than
standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.

Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
and brown pairs but just want to double check here.

Thanks

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

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Poe pinout for Netonix Switch

I thought Netonix could simply swap the polarity?

The pinout is the same, but blue/brown is hot/neutral for Ubnt/Mikrotik

brown/blue is hot/neutral for Motorola/Trango/Cambium


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

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Darin Steffl 
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> We're going to power some ePMP GPS AP's with a Netonix switch. I
> understand I can power them with either 24V or 48V but the pinout is
> different than standard Ubiquiti passive POE that we're used to.
>
> Which color wires do we swap on one side of the cable termination to
> properly power the ePMP GPS AP's? I found online possibly we swap the blue
> and brown pairs but just want to double check here.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Darin Steffl
> Minnesota WiFi
> www.mnwifi.com
> 507-634-WiFi
>  Like us on Facebook
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Consumer routers?