date:20160204

like the Trimble system?   I installed one for Lower Valley water in Clint,
Texas for their meter grid.
my cousin only said indoor applicationguess I will know more this
afternoon

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Lewis Bergman 
wrote:

> Most of the systems used to increase gps accuracy work on 900 unlicensed s
> far as I know.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 3:33 PM TJ Trout  wrote:
>
>> No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
>> which isn't a gps repeater
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Gents:
>>> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?
>>>
>>> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
>>> flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
>>> part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
>>> design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or
>>> Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
>>> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>> Wireless Systems Architect
>>> 915-861-1390
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread Jon Auer

Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.

For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to be
"real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I looked
they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking drones*
I'm not sure why someone would want one.
* A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy drone
into landing at one of their airports.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
> which isn't a gps repeater
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Gents:
>> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?
>>
>> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is flying
>> down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install part is
>> pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater design but I
>> know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or Chihuahua,
>> Mexico requirements.
>> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
>> Jaime Solorza
>> Wireless Systems Architect
>> 915-861-1390
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

2016-02-04 Thread Mathew Howard

I agree, nothing can beat airFiber's latency when you're using sync. We've
pretty much standardized on either ePMP or AF5x for all our 5ghz PTP links.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

> Regarding small channels you should test AF5X. I see 75mbps aggregated on
> a 10MHz Channel. 2ms Frame Length.
>
>
>
> [admin@gw24] > ping 192.168.51.180
>
>   SEQ HOST SIZE TTL TIME
> STATUS
>
> 0 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms
>
> 1 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 2 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 3 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 4 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms
>
> 5 192.168.51.180 56  64 3ms
>
> 6 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 7 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 8 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 9 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms
>
>10 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>11 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>12 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>13 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>14 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>15 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>16 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>17 192.168.51.180 56  64 0ms
>
> sent=18 received=18 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=0ms avg-rtt=1ms max-rtt=3ms
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30MHz I see 264mbps.
>
>
>
> Imho best option for small channels. With big channels Mimosa is great.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Mathew Howard
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 21:23
> *An:* af 
> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP
>
>
>
> But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a
> PTP link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across
> it. Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps
> on a 20mhz channel.
>
> 0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
> 1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
> 2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
> 3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
> 4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
> 5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
> 6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
> 7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
> 8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
> 9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
> sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms
> max-rtt=13ms
>
> I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is
> capable of a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able
> to run two separate channels and make changes without taking the link
> down... but latency isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP
> mode).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing
> 7-9mbps
>
>
>
> > ping 172.16.10.178
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
>
>
> 62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode
>
>
>
> Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP
> product you get ~1ms
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt  wrote:
>
> What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
> Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?
>
>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

Hello Gents:
Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?

I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is flying
down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install part is
pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater design but I
know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or Chihuahua,
Mexico requirements.
Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

2016-02-04 Thread Stefan Englhardt



>I think Mimosa said at one point they were adding a flexible non-synced 
>mode... but I don't know if that ever happened or not, and I could be 
>completely wrong, but as far as I can remember, >when I set ours up, there was 
>no non-synced option. They are also supposed to be adding ptmp to the B5c, if 
>I remember correctly.

This is non-synced mode is announced for the next release which should be there 
soon:

http://help.mimosa.co/backhaul-firmware-roadmap

>There are definitely some advantages to the ePMP (being less than half the 
>price, for one)... but a B5c is capable of a lot higher throughput and has 
>some nice features. one of the best things >about using ePMP for PTP links is 
>that we can just use the same radios for everything, so we always have plenty 
>on hand.



Where performance is enough and latency does not hurt …





On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:

B5c is ptp sync (only?) and ePMP is ptp and ptmp sync or not, but I wanted to 
answer the last question at least.






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



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mathew Howard  > wrote:

But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a PTP 
link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across it. 
Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps on a 
20mhz channel.

0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
   10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms max-rtt=13ms

I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is capable of 
a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able to run two 
separate channels and make changes without taking the link down... but latency 
isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP mode).



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:

Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing 7-9mbps



> ping 172.16.10.178

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms



62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode



Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP 
product you get ~1ms






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



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt  > wrote:

What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

FCC Staffer.

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 3:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Out of curiosity Chuck, was that a State or Federal regulator?

On 2/4/2016 12:41 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

  Directly from the mouth of one of the key regulators standing 2 feet away and 
speaking directly to me, I heard they want the telcos to do 100% fiber and then 
it is game over.  They don’t want to consider any option other than fiber.  Of 
course you will never see that in a public statement, but that is how they 
feel.  

  From: Ken Hohhof 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:36 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  Virtually all of northern Illinois is already marked as served.  But I think 
the ILECs did this to themselves by lying about their speeds and coverage, I 
think very little of that area became served due to WISPs.

  They falsely claimed to have 4/1 DSL service already, so they don’t get a 
welfare check for those areas, but they don’t want to fix their sucky copper 
and DSL service without that welfare check.

  So they need the benchmark for “served” raised to 10/1 or 25/3 so they can 
get subsidies to upgrade their own service, they probably also want approval 
for “IP transition” so they can put in fiber and abandon the copper and 
traditional POTS service.

  It just amazes me they will pay Verizon $2000 per subscriber for a system 
they can then claim is worthless and unprofitable and get subsidies to replace 
it.  Seems like you overpaid, or else future subsidies were part of the 
valuation.

  From: Chuck McCown 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:24 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken 
away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.  

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.

  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP

--

  From: "Chuck McCown" mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
  broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
  boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
  serve" as a common carrier.

  -Original Message- 
  From: Josh Reynolds
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
  coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
  larger WISPs being total bullshit.

  Is that correct?

  On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
  > If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
  > telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
  > whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
  > future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
  > that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
  > truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
  > change
  > to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
  > can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
  >
  > From: Cameron Crum
  > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
  > To: af@afmug.com
  > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
  >
  > I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
  > surgically accurate.
  >
  > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:
  >>
  >> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
  >> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
  >> telcos
  >> challenging your coverage data.
  >>
  >> From: Dennis Burgess
  >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
  >> To: af@afmug.com
  >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
  >>
  >>
  >> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
  >> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
  >> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
  >> API.
  >> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies,

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

its for manufacturing plantI am sure not as esoteric or nefarious as
some of these responses

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:

> Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I mean... testing
> radio timing in our well shielded test room :)
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867
>>
>> *From:* Jon Auer 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
>> *To:* Animal Farm 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters
>>
>> Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
>> repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.
>>
>> For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to
>> be "real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I
>> looked they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
>> drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
>> * A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy
>> drone into landing at one of their airports.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>
>>> No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
>>> which isn't a gps repeater
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza >> > wrote:
>>>
 Hello Gents:
 Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?

 I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
 flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
 part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
 design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or
 Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
 Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
 Jaime Solorza
 Wireless Systems Architect
 915-861-1390

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] mikrotik vpn question

The "my network" already has the subnet locally?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Feb 4, 2016 6:12 PM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:

>
> so i lost a router in a storm the other night.  putting in a new router
> and i made the subnet a little larger.  trying to setup a pptp vpn between
> my home mikrotik and the tower mikrotik some 80 miles away.  they're
> talking, i've got the nat rules in place, etc, i can even ping devices on
> the remote network from my home mikrotik.   for some reason my devices on
> my network can't ping over there.  a traceroute fails.
>
> i assume its an issue with my ip -> routes but i have an entry there i
> believe is correct.
>
> any thoughts?
>
> thanks :)
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Public Btest server

2016-02-04 Thread Andreas Wiatowski

Thanks Sterling…

The most I could get was 350 or so downlink for a total with current traffic at 
1.2Gbps… I’m happy…we have been pinched at 930Mbps at our edge for the past 2 
months… We have 2 Cores and are well over 2Gbps at night… so we will see what 
happens tonight…I’m sure I will find a few back hauls that will need upgrading. 
 Uplink a burst up to 700.

-Andreas
--


From: Sterling Jacobson
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com"
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 3:47 PM
To: "af@afmug.com"
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Public Btest server

Doesn’t need to be private for this list I guess, so you can go here for btest: 
69.27.173.38
I’ll leave it open for a few days.

Also, if you have a desktop or server with 10G interface you can try our 
speedtest.net server at Avative.speedtest.net.

Let me know what you see!



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Andreas Wiatowski
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 1:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Public Btest server

Anyone have a public btest server that I can test my new 10GE on??  Only want 
to see if it goes over 1.5Gbps…?

Private mssge me.

Cheers,
__
Andreas Wiatowski | CEO
Silo Wireless Inc.
Email  andr...@silowireless.com
19 Sage Court
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7T4 (CANADA)
Tel +1.519.449.5656  Extension-600|Fax +1.519.449.5536 |Toll Free 
+1.866.727.4138

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

2016-02-04 Thread Jaime Fink

Yes, we’ll have the flexible Auto-TDMA (non-synced) mode out quite soon in 
version 1.3, beta users are seeing under a ms in many cases. Lots of other new 
features like auto transmit power control and in general link smoothness and 
speed improvements.

Jaime Fink
CPO & Co-Founder
Mimosa

From: Af > on behalf of 
Mathew Howard >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM
To: af >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

I think Mimosa said at one point they were adding a flexible non-synced mode... 
but I don't know if that ever happened or not, and I could be completely wrong, 
but as far as I can remember, when I set ours up, there was no non-synced 
option. They are also supposed to be adding ptmp to the B5c, if I remember 
correctly.

There are definitely some advantages to the ePMP (being less than half the 
price, for one)... but a B5c is capable of a lot higher throughput and has some 
nice features. one of the best things about using ePMP for PTP links is that we 
can just use the same radios for everything, so we always have plenty on hand.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
B5c is ptp sync (only?) and ePMP is ptp and ptmp sync or not, but I wanted to 
answer the last question at least.

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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a PTP 
link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across it. 
Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps on a 
20mhz channel.

0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
   10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms max-rtt=13ms

I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is capable of 
a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able to run two 
separate channels and make changes without taking the link down... but latency 
isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP mode).

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing 7-9mbps

> ping 172.16.10.178
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode

Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP 
product you get ~1ms

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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt 
> wrote:
What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

2016-02-04 Thread Mathew Howard

I think Mimosa said at one point they were adding a flexible non-synced
mode... but I don't know if that ever happened or not, and I could be
completely wrong, but as far as I can remember, when I set ours up, there
was no non-synced option. They are also supposed to be adding ptmp to the
B5c, if I remember correctly.

There are definitely some advantages to the ePMP (being less than half the
price, for one)... but a B5c is capable of a lot higher throughput and has
some nice features. one of the best things about using ePMP for PTP links
is that we can just use the same radios for everything, so we always have
plenty on hand.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> B5c is ptp sync (only?) and ePMP is ptp and ptmp sync or not, but I wanted
> to answer the last question at least.
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mathew Howard 
> wrote:
>
>> But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a
>> PTP link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across
>> it. Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps
>> on a 20mhz channel.
>>
>> 0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
>> 1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
>> 2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
>> 3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>> 4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>> 5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
>> 6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>> 7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
>> 8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
>> 9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>>10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
>> sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms
>> max-rtt=13ms
>>
>> I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is
>> capable of a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able
>> to run two separate channels and make changes without taking the link
>> down... but latency isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP
>> mode).
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>>
>>> Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing
>>> 7-9mbps
>>>
>>> > ping 172.16.10.178
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>>> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>>>
>>> 62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode
>>>
>>> Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on
>>> ePMP product you get ~1ms
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
 Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?

>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

2016-02-04 Thread Stefan Englhardt

Regarding small channels you should test AF5X. I see 75mbps aggregated on a 
10MHz Channel. 2ms Frame Length.



[admin@gw24] > ping 192.168.51.180

  SEQ HOST SIZE TTL TIME  STATUS   

0 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms

1 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

2 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

3 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

4 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms

5 192.168.51.180 56  64 3ms

6 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

7 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

8 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

9 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms

   10 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   11 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   12 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   13 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   14 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   15 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   16 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms

   17 192.168.51.180 56  64 0ms

sent=18 received=18 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=0ms avg-rtt=1ms max-rtt=3ms





On 30MHz I see 264mbps.



Imho best option for small channels. With big channels Mimosa is great.







Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Mathew Howard
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 21:23
An: af 
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP



But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a PTP 
link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across it. 
Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps on a 
20mhz channel.

0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
   10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms max-rtt=13ms

I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is capable of 
a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able to run two 
separate channels and make changes without taking the link down... but latency 
isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP mode).



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:

Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing 7-9mbps



> ping 172.16.10.178

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms



62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode



Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP 
product you get ~1ms






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



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt  > wrote:

What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread TJ Trout

No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors, which
isn't a gps repeater

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> Hello Gents:
> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?
>
> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is flying
> down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install part is
> pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater design but I
> know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or Chihuahua,
> Mexico requirements.
> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

Thanks for clarifying.  Nice to have someone on the inside set the facts
straight.


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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Jaime Fink  wrote:

> Yes, we’ll have the flexible Auto-TDMA (non-synced) mode out quite soon in
> version 1.3, beta users are seeing under a ms in many cases. Lots of other
> new features like auto transmit power control and in general link
> smoothness and speed improvements.
>
> Jaime Fink
> CPO & Co-Founder
> Mimosa
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Mathew Howard <
> mhoward...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM
> To: af 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP
>
> I think Mimosa said at one point they were adding a flexible non-synced
> mode... but I don't know if that ever happened or not, and I could be
> completely wrong, but as far as I can remember, when I set ours up, there
> was no non-synced option. They are also supposed to be adding ptmp to the
> B5c, if I remember correctly.
>
> There are definitely some advantages to the ePMP (being less than half the
> price, for one)... but a B5c is capable of a lot higher throughput and has
> some nice features. one of the best things about using ePMP for PTP links
> is that we can just use the same radios for everything, so we always have
> plenty on hand.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> B5c is ptp sync (only?) and ePMP is ptp and ptmp sync or not, but I
>> wanted to answer the last question at least.
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mathew Howard 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across
>>> a PTP link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across
>>> it. Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps
>>> on a 20mhz channel.
>>>
>>> 0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
>>> 1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
>>> 2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
>>> 3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>>> 4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>>> 5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
>>> 6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>>> 7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
>>> 8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
>>> 9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>>>10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
>>> sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms
>>> max-rtt=13ms
>>>
>>> I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is
>>> capable of a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able
>>> to run two separate channels and make changes without taking the link
>>> down... but latency isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP
>>> mode).
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing
 7-9mbps

 > ping 172.16.10.178
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms

 62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode

 Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on
 ePMP product you get ~1ms


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

 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt 
 wrote:

> What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
> Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?
>


>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

I have a re-radiation system in place at my manufacturing location,  but I
can't vouch for its legality without an appropriate permit from the FCC.

   If the goal is to get higher accuracy gps readings indoors then this
isn't what you want to use.   Generally the gps will lock onto the position
of the outdoor antenna and not the location of the end device,  since the
path of the differing gps transmissions will converge on the outdoor
antenna and not the end device.
On Feb 4, 2016 1:12 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

> Hello Gents:
> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?
>
> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is flying
> down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install part is
> pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater design but I
> know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or Chihuahua,
> Mexico requirements.
> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread Jon Auer

Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I mean... testing
radio timing in our well shielded test room :)

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867
>
> *From:* Jon Auer 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters
>
> Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
> repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.
>
> For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to
> be "real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I
> looked they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
> drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
> * A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy drone
> into landing at one of their airports.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>
>> No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
>> which isn't a gps repeater
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Gents:
>>> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?
>>>
>>> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
>>> flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
>>> part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
>>> design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or
>>> Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
>>> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
>>> Jaime Solorza
>>> Wireless Systems Architect
>>> 915-861-1390
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[AFMUG] mikrotik vpn question

2016-02-04 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller


so i lost a router in a storm the other night.  putting in a new router and i 
made the subnet a little larger.  trying to setup a pptp vpn between my home 
mikrotik and the tower mikrotik some 80 miles away.  they're talking, i've got 
the nat rules in place, etc, i can even ping devices on the remote network from 
my home mikrotik.   for some reason my devices on my network can't ping over 
there.  a traceroute fails.

i assume its an issue with my ip -> routes but i have an entry there i believe 
is correct.

any thoughts?

thanks :)

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP

Left this open on my ePTP link, pages and pages of 1ms @ 64 bytes.

sent=4287 received=4287 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=1ms avg-rtt=1ms
   max-rtt=9ms


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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Stefan Englhardt  wrote:

> Regarding small channels you should test AF5X. I see 75mbps aggregated on
> a 10MHz Channel. 2ms Frame Length.
>
>
>
> [admin@gw24] > ping 192.168.51.180
>
>   SEQ HOST SIZE TTL TIME
> STATUS
>
> 0 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms
>
> 1 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 2 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 3 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 4 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms
>
> 5 192.168.51.180 56  64 3ms
>
> 6 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 7 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 8 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
> 9 192.168.51.180 56  64 2ms
>
>10 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>11 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>12 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>13 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>14 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>15 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>16 192.168.51.180 56  64 1ms
>
>17 192.168.51.180 56  64 0ms
>
> sent=18 received=18 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=0ms avg-rtt=1ms max-rtt=3ms
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30MHz I see 264mbps.
>
>
>
> Imho best option for small channels. With big channels Mimosa is great.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *Im Auftrag von *Mathew Howard
> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 21:23
> *An:* af 
> *Betreff:* Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS PTP
>
>
>
> But you can't use sync in ePTP mode... here's what I get pinging across a
> PTP link with 2.5ms frames, with an average of around 5mbps going across
> it. Testing between the Mikrotiks at each end, I can average around 80mbps
> on a 20mhz channel.
>
> 0 10.1.27.25 56  64 10ms
> 1 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
> 2 10.1.27.25 56  64 6ms
> 3 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
> 4 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
> 5 10.1.27.25 56  64 13ms
> 6 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
> 7 10.1.27.25 56  64 7ms
> 8 10.1.27.25 56  64 11ms
> 9 10.1.27.25 56  64 8ms
>10 10.1.27.25 56  64 9ms
> sent=11 received=11 packet-loss=0% min-rtt=6ms avg-rtt=8ms
> max-rtt=13ms
>
> I wouldn't really put them in the same class as a B5c... the B5c is
> capable of a lot more throughput and has some nice gimmicks like being able
> to run two separate channels and make changes without taking the link
> down... but latency isn't too much different (actually a lot better in ePTP
> mode).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Latency in 2.5ms frames from router through AP to SM (16 subs) doing
> 7-9mbps
>
>
>
> > ping 172.16.10.178
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=14 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=12 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=10 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
> 172.16.10.178 64 byte ping: ttl=64 time=11 ms
>
>
>
> 62x15 mbps speed test in flexible mode
>
>
>
> Haven't used a B5c and that's a ptp product...if you do ePTP mode on ePMP
> product you get ~1ms
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Matt  wrote:
>
> What kind of luck are people having with the ePMP PTP using GPS?
> Throughput and latency?  How do they compare to the Mimosa B5c?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

Our experience with YGTC was very flexible, and doesn't sound at all like
what you experienced with $company.
On Feb 4, 2016 2:21 PM, "Sam Kirsch"  wrote:

> This may just be unique to us, but we moved from the 24/7 outsourced
> coverage to in house support that is not 24/7 and we have not gotten too
> many complaints.  The basic support center did so little, that, we
> typically were following up on most critical tickets within 2 hours
> anyways.  So, now we just have people leave us voicemail or e-mail and we
> get back to them.  There are definitely some aggravations that come with
> dealing with an outsourced company;
>
> I don't have to wait for some supervisor at the Call Center to escalate
> tickets, which usually adds 30m-2h before I get to see an escalated ticket
> for a critical issue.  Again, I've already paid for the ticket at this
> point, I want to see it immediately!
>
> I don't have to worry about my request being honored in a timely manner,
> or at all if they go against some corporate policy decided by some crazed
> adherence to metrics.  *I* don't care how many tickets they 'closed' for
> us, I wanted to see every ticket posted as an escalation.  Could never get
> that to happen.  As we were paying the same amount for those tickets no
> matter the resolution, this is one of those things that got my blood
> boiling.
>
>
> Overall I think our customers are a lot happier.  We've also been putting
> a tremendous amount of work into streamlining our network, so, the call
> volume has been going down quite a bit too.
>
> The surprising thing is that regardless of how many prompts there are,
> some people just don't understand what's going on when the voicemail box
> picks up.  Even then, though, we can usually identify the caller via CID
> info and get back to them.
>
> Trust me, I was scared as hell, because we really only have 2 people who
> do Sales/Support/Billing, and one additional Billing person.  I thought it
> would be a gigantic disaster and it has been going really well so far.  But
> I imagine this could very well be a unique situation, and not the norm.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> *-- Samuel Kirsch, Network SupportPlexicomm - Internet Solutions |
> www.plexicomm.net *
> *Office: 1.866.759.4678 x109 <1.866.759.4678%20x109> | Fax: 1.866.852.4688
> <1.866.852.4688>*
> *Emergency Support: 1.866.759.9713 <1.866.759.9713> | sam...@plexicomm.net
> *
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Ken Hohhof" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 2/4/2016 12:16:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
>
>
> I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then
> taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being
> able to call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a
> one-way street, you can’t go back.
>
> Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give
> them something nice and then try to take it back.
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
>
> Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize
> that these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen.  They are
> willing to answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone
> calls in and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer
> needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.
>
> Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will
> never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate.
> Not to mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you
> end up with a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls
> simultaneously, and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold
> myself and am working on switching right now.
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year?
>>
>> whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle
>> and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific
>> circumstance, and a ticket? Presales info?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>>> $2.00 per customer per month.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering our
 industries phones?


 --
 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] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Out of curiosity Chuck, was that a State or Federal regulator?

On 2/4/2016 12:41 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:
Directly from the mouth of one of the key regulators standing 2 feet 
away and speaking directly to me, I heard they want the telcos to do 
100% fiber and then it is game over.  They don’t want to consider any 
option other than fiber.  Of course you will never see that in a 
public statement, but that is how they feel.

*From:* Ken Hohhof 
*Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:36 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
Virtually all of northern Illinois is already marked as served.  But I 
think the ILECs did this to themselves by lying about their speeds and 
coverage, I think very little of that area became served due to WISPs.
They falsely claimed to have 4/1 DSL service already, so they don’t 
get a welfare check for those areas, but they don’t want to fix their 
sucky copper and DSL service without that welfare check.
So they need the benchmark for “served” raised to 10/1 or 25/3 so they 
can get subsidies to upgrade their own service, they probably also 
want approval for “IP transition” so they can put in fiber and abandon 
the copper and traditional POTS service.
It just amazes me they will pay Verizon $2000 per subscriber for a 
system they can then claim is worthless and unprofitable and get 
subsidies to replace it.  Seems like you overpaid, or else future 
subsidies were part of the valuation.

*From:* Chuck McCown 
*Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:24 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be 
taken away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.

*From:* Mike Hammett 
*Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

*From: *"Chuck McCown" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their 
actual

broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a 
"duty to

serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message-
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that 
prevents a

> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage 
percentage

> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to
> change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more 
than you

> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> From: Cameron Crum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on 
your 477

>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be
>> telcos
>> challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867

From: Jon Auer 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the repeating 
would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay. 

For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to be 
"real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I looked they 
were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking drones* I'm not 
sure why someone would want one.
* A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy drone into 
landing at one of their airports.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

  No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors, which 
isn't a gps repeater

  On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza  
wrote:

Hello Gents:
Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?

I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is flying 
down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install part is pretty 
straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater design but I know in USA 
you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or Chihuahua, Mexico 
requirements.
Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas

Jaime Solorza 
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11

160 MHz?  Must be nice.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Feb 4, 2016 9:52 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:

> 5 miles
> 2x80
> 3'
> 2ms
> 980Mbps
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:18 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>
> > We have one of the links up and it’s been solid.  I haven’t touched it
> > since it went in a couple months ago.
>
> What is distance, channel size, dish size, latency and throughput?
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:08 PM
> > To: af 
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
> >
> >
> >
> > hmm... I probably don't want to put one up before Q2 anyway... I
> > suppose I should start working on getting it licensed fairly soon.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
> > (ICI)  wrote:
> >
> > Waiting for six full links
> >
> >
> >
> > I got a call and was told they have pushed the date back again.  EOM?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Tyson Burris, President
> > Internet Communications Inc.
> > 739 Commerce Dr.
> > Franklin, IN 46131
> >
> > 317-738-0320 Daytime #
> > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
> > Online: www.surfici.net
> >
> >
> >
> > Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
> >
> >
> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
> >
> > Are these things shipping yet, and is anyone here using them?
> >
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread Lewis Bergman

Oh, indoor. We have done a couple but they were not gps exactly. They were
location based that took over for gps indoors with auxiliary receivers.
Interesting though.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 4:41 PM Jaime Solorza 
wrote:

> its for manufacturing plantI am sure not as esoteric or nefarious as
> some of these responses
>
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:
>
>> Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I mean...
>> testing radio timing in our well shielded test room :)
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867
>>>
>>> *From:* Jon Auer 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
>>> *To:* Animal Farm 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
>>> repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.
>>>
>>> For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to
>>> be "real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I
>>> looked they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
>>> drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
>>> * A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy
>>> drone into landing at one of their airports.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>
 No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
 which isn't a gps repeater

 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza <
 losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Gents:
> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial
> use?
>
> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
> flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
> part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
> design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or
> Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

Sadly, it's only a single channel, although this would be great for
verifying correct receiver performance.   Not so great for simulating the
gps constellation.
On Feb 4, 2016 3:30 PM, "Jon Auer"  wrote:

> Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I mean... testing
> radio timing in our well shielded test room :)
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867
>>
>> *From:* Jon Auer 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
>> *To:* Animal Farm 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters
>>
>> Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
>> repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.
>>
>> For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to
>> be "real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I
>> looked they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
>> drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
>> * A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy
>> drone into landing at one of their airports.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>
>>> No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
>>> which isn't a gps repeater
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza >> > wrote:
>>>
 Hello Gents:
 Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial use?

 I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
 flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
 part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
 design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or
 Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
 Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
 Jaime Solorza
 Wireless Systems Architect
 915-861-1390

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11

2016-02-04 Thread Rory Conaway

5 miles
2x80
3'
2ms
980Mbps



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11

> We have one of the links up and it’s been solid.  I haven’t touched it 
> since it went in a couple months ago.

What is distance, channel size, dish size, latency and throughput?


>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:08 PM
> To: af 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>
>
>
> hmm... I probably don't want to put one up before Q2 anyway... I 
> suppose I should start working on getting it licensed fairly soon.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc 
> (ICI)  wrote:
>
> Waiting for six full links
>
>
>
> I got a call and was told they have pushed the date back again.  EOM?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tyson Burris, President
> Internet Communications Inc.
> 739 Commerce Dr.
> Franklin, IN 46131
>
> 317-738-0320 Daytime #
> 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
> Online: www.surfici.net
>
>
>
> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>
> Are these things shipping yet, and is anyone here using them?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread George Skorup

I know Cambium has a GPS "repeater" in their lab. Repeater is likely not
accurate. Probably more like an amp.

On 2/4/2016 6:07 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:

Oh, indoor. We have done a couple but they were not gps exactly. They
were location based that took over for gps indoors with auxiliary
receivers. Interesting though.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 4:41 PM Jaime Solorza > wrote:

its for manufacturing plantI am sure not as esoteric or
nefarious as some of these responses

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Jon Auer > wrote:

Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I
mean... testing radio timing in our well shielded test room :)

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown > wrote:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867
*From:* Jon Auer
*Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
*To:* Animal Farm
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters
Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with
GPS since the repeating would add delay and GPS works on
differences in delay.
For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it
doesn't have to be "real" there are GPS test sets /
satellite simulators. Last time I looked they were crazy
expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
* A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to
trick a US spy drone into landing at one of their airports.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout > wrote:

No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps
signal for tractors, which isn't a gps repeater
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza
> wrote:

Hello Gents:
Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater
system for commercial use?
I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in
Chihuahua and is flying down here to look a
project using these. I told him the install part
is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA
cell repeater design but I know in USA you need a
license. Not sure about Cd. Juarez or Chihuahua,
Mexico requirements.
Any feedback appreciated. muchas garcias en minifaldas
Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

Yep...curious to see what they need.
On Feb 4, 2016 5:07 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:

> Oh, indoor. We have done a couple but they were not gps exactly. They were
> location based that took over for gps indoors with auxiliary receivers.
> Interesting though.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 4:41 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> its for manufacturing plantI am sure not as esoteric or nefarious as
>> some of these responses
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>> Wireless Systems Architect
>> 915-861-1390
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:
>>
>>> Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I mean...
>>> testing radio timing in our well shielded test room :)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>

 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867

 *From:* Jon Auer 
 *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
 *To:* Animal Farm 
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

 Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
 repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.

 For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have
 to be "real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I
 looked they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
 drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
 * A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy
 drone into landing at one of their airports.

 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:

> No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
> which isn't a gps repeater
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza <
> losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Gents:
>> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial
>> use?
>>
>> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
>> flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
>> part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
>> design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez 
>> or
>> Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
>> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
>> Jaime Solorza
>> Wireless Systems Architect
>> 915-861-1390
>>
>
>


>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters

2016-02-04 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

The next question is what form they need the signal.   For example, on my
workbench I have a gps distribution amplifier with several outputs that I
can hook gps receivers with coax cables to.   For testing things with patch
antennas,  I use a passive gps patch to couple the signal into the device.

In the manufacturing plant,  we just need a decent strength signal to lock
on to.   For this,  we just have a inexpensive gps repeater you can get
from eBay for around $200-400 or so.
On Feb 4, 2016 3:41 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

> its for manufacturing plantI am sure not as esoteric or nefarious as
> some of these responses
>
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Jon Auer  wrote:
>
>> Wow. That's actually affordable. On to hijacking drones! I mean...
>> testing radio timing in our well shielded test room :)
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spirent-GSS6100-GPS-Signal-Simulator-Calibrated-23-Oct-2015-30-Day-Warranty/172024671227?_trksid=p2141725.c100338.m3726&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20150313114020%26meid%3D4b46d7f2e77944be96ecc6bcd88c84c8%26pid%3D100338%26rk%3D8%26rkt%3D17%26sd%3D331764301867
>>>
>>> *From:* Jon Auer 
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:58 PM
>>> *To:* Animal Farm 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] GPS Repeaters
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'd think such a thing would be incompatible with GPS since the
>>> repeating would add delay and GPS works on differences in delay.
>>>
>>> For indoors, if you need GPS signal for something but it doesn't have to
>>> be "real" there are GPS test sets / satellite simulators. Last time I
>>> looked they were crazy expensive. Unless you are testing gear or hijacking
>>> drones* I'm not sure why someone would want one.
>>> * A famous example was Iran using fake GPS signals to trick a US spy
>>> drone into landing at one of their airports.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:33 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
>>>
 No such thing, I think. Probably a localized gps signal for tractors,
 which isn't a gps repeater

 On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Jaime Solorza <
 losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Gents:
> Any of you blokes ever install a GPS repeater system for commercial
> use?
>
> I got a call from my cousin who is an engineer in Chihuahua and is
> flying down here to look a project using these.  I told him the install
> part is pretty straight forward, much like a DAS or OTA cell repeater
> design but I know in USA you need a license.  Not sure about Cd. Juarez or
> Chihuahua, Mexico requirements.
> Any feedback appreciated.   muchas garcias en minifaldas
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>


>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

2016-02-04 Thread Cameron Crum

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
surgically accurate.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be
> telcos challenging your coverage data.
>
> *From:* Dennis Burgess 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
>
> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>
>
>
> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the
> API.   Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it
> up ..
>
>
>
> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>
> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
>
>
> +1000
> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
> customers it has brought to us and
> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
> locations.
> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could
> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
>
>
>
>
> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hmmm.news to me
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>
>
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> To: 
> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM
>
>
>
> Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:
>
> This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps
> coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is
> pulling this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a
> year and have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller <
> par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean
> powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> *From:* Dennis Burgess 
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>
>
>
> Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing is the
> same as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer questions
> as well as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or
> e-mail.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>
> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 <314-735-0270%20x103> –
> www.linktechs.net 
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
> /sarcasm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>
>
>
> wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it used to be, still
> expensive if you wanted to plot every antenna, but omni will get you the
> gist of it. hopefully their support is better than a repetitive canned
> response now
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> $25/mo is not much.  I strongly recommend signing up for it simply for the
> EUS form.  If you get ONE customer out of the purchase, you made money.
> Any more than that is gravy.
>
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Tim Reichhart <
> timreichh...@hometowncable.net> wrote:
>
> Who on this list is using towercoverage.com? I want to know how accurate
> it is because I have an account now with them and I am doubt its very
> accurate to give out an good signal from my tower. Because I really hate
> spending 25 dollars per month and its not going to be accurate.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] SonicWall or Fortinet for Business Firewall

Fortinet. Sonicwall is quite a "joke" and has been that way for many moons.
On Feb 4, 2016 8:08 AM, "Wireless Administrator"  wrote:

> I have a business customer that will be replacing their existing Firewall
> and is considering Fortinet rather than SonicWall.  Seems like UTM (Unified
> Threat Management) is the buzz word that replaced Deep Packet Inspection
> from days gone by.  Does anyone have an opinion on which company has the
> better product.  A web search on this subject produces many links to pages
> that share similar language, almost like one person did a review and others
> are just repeating the original results.
>
>
>
> Your thoughts?
>
>
>
> Steve B.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

I did it all in house.
Then I went to some outsource company for a fee tied to the number of subs.
They had a sneaky auto renewal in the contract that caught me.  Had a battle.
Then went with another company.  
Then brought it all in house.  
Customers got much happier.

Next company, same pattern.  Happy customers.
If you are large enough to have your own person answer the phone and they have 
a tier 2 to hand it off to if they cannot do the routine stuff, you will retain 
customers.  

As good as a call center can be (and we have two excellent companies in Utah, I 
have used both of them), it is far better to use them only for overflow during 
the off hours or during peaks when you have a major outage.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

As a counter to this.,

We provided ygtx with read only access to aircontrol. This let them do things 
like log into radios (read-only) and check stats, and also run speed tests. We 
gave them a troubleshooting flow chart. Our calls to higher level staff went 
down 90%. Customers call that number day and night.

It let our higher techs and management spend more time on technical 
infrastructure design and troubleshooting, intercompany issues, marketing, new 
product research, etc.

Would never ever go back to not using a call center.

On Feb 4, 2016 8:39 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

  A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff will 
be.  They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever troubleshooting 
steps you give them to follow.  They can do basic billing and sales stuff as 
long as you give them the information they need to do that.  You can't expect 
them to figure out anything that would require knowledge of your network, and 
to be frank I would try to keep your expectations as low as possible.  Write 
them a troubleshooting guide as if you were writing it for an idiot.be 
specific and clear and provide pictures. 

  Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account for 
that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the call center 
tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which happens to be a 
licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once they figure out that the 
only thing the call center can do for them is open a ticket that you won't see 
until the morning.  One way to address that is make the first step in the 
troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly invoices, if it's greater 
than $500 then stop here and call our cell phones until we wake up".

  All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can shield 
you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident and only send 
them the overnight calls. 



  On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even better 
with actual tech support

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then 
taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being able to 
call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a one-way street, 
you can’t go back.

  Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give 
them something nice and then try to take it back.


  From: Jeremy 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

  Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize 
that these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen.  They are 
willing to answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone 
calls in and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer 
needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.   

  Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will 
never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate.  Not 
to mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you end up 
with a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls simultaneously, 
and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold myself and am 
working on switching right now.

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year? 

whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle 
and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific circumstance, 
and a ticket? Presales info?

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy  wrote:

  $2.00 per customer per month.  

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

I really don't disagree.  Even if they can't do as much as our own staff 
can, it's better to have them than not.

On 2/4/2016 9:47 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

As a counter to this.,

We provided ygtx with read only access to aircontrol. This let them do 
things like log into radios (read-only) and check stats, and also run 
speed tests. We gave them a troubleshooting flow chart. Our calls to 
higher level staff went down 90%. Customers call that number day and 
night.

It let our higher techs and management spend more time on technical 
infrastructure design and troubleshooting, intercompany issues, 
marketing, new product research, etc.

Would never ever go back to not using a call center.

On Feb 4, 2016 8:39 AM, "Adam Moffett" > wrote:

A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own
staff will be. They can help people reboot, and they can follow
whatever troubleshooting steps you give them to follow.  They can
do basic billing and sales stuff as long as you give them the
information they need to do that.  You can't expect them to figure
out anything that would require knowledge of your network, and to
be frank I would try to keep your expectations as low as
possible.  Write them a troubleshooting guide as if you were
writing it for an idiot.be specific and clear and provide
pictures.

Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to
account for that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get
riled up if the call center tries to walk them through rebooting
their equipment, which happens to be a licensed backhaul and Cisco
router.  Even more so once they figure out that the only thing the
call center can do for them is open a ticket that you won't see
until the morning. One way to address that is make the first step
in the troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly
invoices, if it's greater than $500 then stop here and call our
cell phones until we wake up".

All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who
can shield you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per
incident and only send them the overnight calls.

On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds
even better with actual tech support

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof > wrote:

I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for
awhile and then taking it away after the night owls and
lonely hearts get used to being able to call in the middle of
the night.  Call center support must be a one-way street, you
can’t go back.
Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but
don’t ever give them something nice and then try to take it back.
*From:* Jeremy 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you
have to realize that these are tech support guys...they
aren't really salesmen. They are willing to answer some
questions, and will schedule an install when someone calls in
and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the
customer needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.
Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a
month...you will never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to
answer your calls at that rate.  Not to mention that employee
will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you end up with a
call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls
simultaneously, and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've
already sold myself and am working on switching right now.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:

so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year?
whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech
support (powercycle and a ticket)? basic billing stuff,
take payments under specific circumstance, and a ticket?
Presales info?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy
>
wrote:

$2.00 per customer per month.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:

what kind of dough gets paid for call centers
capable of answering our industries phones?

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

Some will also do $4/call.  

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

$2.00 per customer per month.  

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering our 
industries phones? 

  -- 

  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] Check-in service for field technicians

That's basically what our local Time Warner franchise does.  It also 
doubles as the timeclock.  Arrival time at the first job of the day 
counts as their punch in time.



On 2/4/2016 9:38 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:

Our techs are instructed to contact the NOC before and after they
arrive onsite. The tech supplies the ETA to the NOC and the NOC
follows up at the given ETA.

Our NOC is staffed 24x7. YMMV.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Steve D  wrote:

Hey folks,

I want to evaluate some different options for field tech's to check-in with.
Right now, we rely on our support staff to not "forget" that a tech missed
his ETA to return home at night, but it does happen sometimes.  I'd like to
eliminate human error.  Ideally, something that they can phone into, email,
sms or website.  And obviously, if a check-in is missed, automated
notifications are sent to a list of contacts, escalating with time.

Anyone use anything like this and have recommendations?

-Steve D

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

2016-02-04 Thread Dennis Burgess

All zeros means it sent a ARP broadcast out but has not received a ARP 
response.  

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

What version of ROS ? 

I saw something similar on another router a couple of days back. 
It was someone else's router, not sure how they fixed it.

MT forums suggest to upgrade to 6.34 for the fix..

YMMV.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:31:49 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

> I've never seen this, but a router I am using is filling up it's ARP 
> table with Zeros on available IP's.
> 
> As shown in the picture.
> 
> This is a very simple routeros setup with one ether1 interface bridged 
> with a few EoIP tunnels
> 
> Obviously somewhere in the network I'm doing something quite wrong and 
> it's causing this routers ARP table to register as all Zeros.
> 
> These are active device IP's, so only the ones that SHOULD have MAC's 
> are showing, but their MACs are all Zeros.
> 
> Just want to see if anyone has a general idea of what causes this on 
> RouterOS so I know where to start looking.

Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

2016-02-04 Thread Dennis Burgess

We actually have a API that they can do that if they wish ☺

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean powercode, 
and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)

- Original Message -
From: Dennis Burgess
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing is the same 
as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer questions as well 
as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or e-mail.

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it used to be, still 
expensive if you wanted to plot every antenna, but omni will get you the gist 
of it. hopefully their support is better than a repetitive canned response now

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
$25/mo is not much.  I strongly recommend signing up for it simply for the EUS 
form.  If you get ONE customer out of the purchase, you made money.  Any more 
than that is gravy.

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

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Tim Reichhart 
> wrote:
Who on this list is using towercoverage.com? I want 
to know how accurate it is because I have an account now with them and I am 
doubt its very accurate to give out an good signal from my tower. Because I 
really hate spending 25 dollars per month and its not going to be accurate.

Tim

--
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] Call center pricing

A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff 
will be.  They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever 
troubleshooting steps you give them to follow.  They can do basic 
billing and sales stuff as long as you give them the information they 
need to do that.  You can't expect them to figure out anything that 
would require knowledge of your network, and to be frank I would try to 
keep your expectations as low as possible. Write them a troubleshooting 
guide as if you were writing it for an idiot.be specific and clear 
and provide pictures.

Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account 
for that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the 
call center tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which 
happens to be a licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once 
they figure out that the only thing the call center can do for them is 
open a ticket that you won't see until the morning.  One way to address 
that is make the first step in the troubleshooting guide: "look at one 
of their monthly invoices, if it's greater than $500 then stop here and 
call our cell phones until we wake up".

All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can 
shield you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident 
and only send them the overnight calls.

On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even 
better with actual tech support

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof > wrote:

I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile
and then taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get
used to being able to call in the middle of the night.  Call
center support must be a one-way street, you can’t go back.
Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t
ever give them something nice and then try to take it back.
*From:* Jeremy 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to
realize that these are tech support guys...they aren't really
salesmen.  They are willing to answer some questions, and will
schedule an install when someone calls in and says "I want to be
installed on X day"...but when the customer needs to 'be sold'
don't expect any big numbers.
Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a
month...you will never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer
your calls at that rate.  Not to mention that employee will only
work 8 hours a day. This route, you end up with a call center that
has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls simultaneously, and it runs
24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold myself and am
working on switching right now.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:

so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year?
whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support
(powercycle and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments
under specific circumstance, and a ticket? Presales info?
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy
> wrote:

$2.00 per customer per month.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:

what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable
of answering our industries phones?
-- 
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] Call center pricing

I've spoken with ServerPlus about a "Tier 2" level of support. I'm not sure 
where they are in that as I've been sidetracked since I asked. It was basically 
an avenue to send dedicated\wholesale\"special customers" (tower owners, etc.). 
It would cost more, but you'd get someone that knew what was going on. Maybe 
they're smart enough to check Ethernet port status, BGP session status, know 
what a good wireless connection is from a bad one, etc. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:39:32 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing 

A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff will be. 
They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever troubleshooting steps 
you give them to follow. They can do basic billing and sales stuff as long as 
you give them the information they need to do that. You can't expect them to 
figure out anything that would require knowledge of your network, and to be 
frank I would try to keep your expectations as low as possible. Write them a 
troubleshooting guide as if you were writing it for an idiot.be specific 
and clear and provide pictures. 

Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account for 
that somehow. Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the call center 
tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which happens to be a 
licensed backhaul and Cisco router. Even more so once they figure out that the 
only thing the call center can do for them is open a ticket that you won't see 
until the morning. One way to address that is make the first step in the 
troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly invoices, if it's greater 
than $500 then stop here and call our cell phones until we wake up". 

All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can shield you 
from dumb problems. If nothing else, pay them per incident and only send them 
the overnight calls. 



On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote: 



interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even better 
with actual tech support 


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 






I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then taking 
it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being able to call 
in the middle of the night. Call center support must be a one-way street, you 
can’t go back. 

Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give them 
something nice and then try to take it back. 





From: Jeremy 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing 




Yep, $24K a year. They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize that 
these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen. They are willing to 
answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone calls in and 
says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer needs to 'be 
sold' don't expect any big numbers. 

Still, when you add it up. 1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will never 
hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate. Not to 
mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day. This route, you end up with 
a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls simultaneously, and 
it runs 24 hours. If you can't tell I've already sold myself and am working on 
switching right now. 


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: 



so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year? 

whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle and a 
ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific circumstance, and a 
ticket? Presales info? 


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 



$2.00 per customer per month. 




On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: 





what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering our 
industries phones? 


-- 




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] Call center pricing

As a counter to this.,

We provided ygtx with read only access to aircontrol. This let them do
things like log into radios (read-only) and check stats, and also run speed
tests. We gave them a troubleshooting flow chart. Our calls to higher level
staff went down 90%. Customers call that number day and night.

It let our higher techs and management spend more time on technical
infrastructure design and troubleshooting, intercompany issues, marketing,
new product research, etc.

Would never ever go back to not using a call center.
On Feb 4, 2016 8:39 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff will
> be.  They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever
> troubleshooting steps you give them to follow.  They can do basic billing
> and sales stuff as long as you give them the information they need to do
> that.  You can't expect them to figure out anything that would require
> knowledge of your network, and to be frank I would try to keep your
> expectations as low as possible.  Write them a troubleshooting guide as if
> you were writing it for an idiot.be specific and clear and provide
> pictures.
>
> Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account
> for that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the call
> center tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which happens
> to be a licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once they figure
> out that the only thing the call center can do for them is open a ticket
> that you won't see until the morning.  One way to address that is make the
> first step in the troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly
> invoices, if it's greater than $500 then stop here and call our cell phones
> until we wake up".
>
> All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can shield
> you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident and only
> send them the overnight calls.
>
>
> On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even
> better with actual tech support
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then
>> taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being
>> able to call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a
>> one-way street, you can’t go back.
>>
>> Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give
>> them something nice and then try to take it back.
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jeremy 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
>>
>> Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize
>> that these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen.  They are
>> willing to answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone
>> calls in and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer
>> needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.
>>
>> Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will
>> never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate.
>> Not to mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you
>> end up with a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls
>> simultaneously, and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold
>> myself and am working on switching right now.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year?
>>>
>>> whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle
>>> and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific
>>> circumstance, and a ticket? Presales info?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy  wrote:
>>>
 $2.00 per customer per month.

 On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
 thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering our
> industries phones?
>
>
> --
> 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] Call center pricing

They have different rates. $/customer, $/call, $/minute, etc. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:55:12 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing 


That is the price of Server Plus. 


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 



That's pricey, who was that? 
On Feb 3, 2016 10:08 PM, "Jeremy" < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 



$2.00 per customer per month. 


On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm < 
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > wrote: 





what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering our 
industries phones? 



-- 




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] Call center pricing

I’m not saying Windows 10 is bad, just that a call center tech will be fully 
trained on it.  And it definitely is harder to get a customer to change control 
panel settings or use troubleshooting tools like ping when they are used to 
just poking at tiles to open apps on a touchscreen.  Just getting them to 
successfully open the Settings charm can be a big effort over the phone.

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

Honestly Win10 is pretty decent.

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:47 AM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

  Windows 10?  I should try that some time.  Same goes for Windows 8.  Man, I 
need a call center.

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

I would imagine they can do a better job than most of us at certain things, 
like help with various computers, phones, tablets, routers, apps, email 
problems, etc.  I am still not good with Windows 10 support, and I am lost if 
someone has a Belkin or ASUS or TP-Link router.  The call center techs do this 
all day every day, plus they probably have scripts and cheat sheets for all the 
major devices and software.  So they aren’t guessing when the customer says the 
lights on  the router look like a planet, a sparkler, a candlestick, and a 
tadpole.

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 11:23 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even better 
with actual tech support

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

  I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then 
taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being able to 
call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a one-way street, 
you can’t go back.

  Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give 
them something nice and then try to take it back.

  From: Jeremy 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

  Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize 
that these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen.  They are 
willing to answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone 
calls in and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer 
needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.   

  Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will 
never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate.  Not 
to mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you end up 
with a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls simultaneously, 
and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold myself and am 
working on switching right now.

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year? 

whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle 
and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific circumstance, 
and a ticket? Presales info?

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy  wrote:

  $2.00 per customer per month.  

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering 
our industries phones? 

-- 

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] Call center pricing

Haha, first 2 steps for enterprise customer support:

1)  Are you at the site, or are you calling from a remote NOC because your 
monitoring system can’t ping the site?

2)  Assuming you are not at the site, have you verified the site has power?


From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:45 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

I've spoken with ServerPlus about a "Tier 2" level of support. I'm not sure 
where they are in that as I've been sidetracked since I asked. It was basically 
an avenue to send dedicated\wholesale\"special customers" (tower owners, etc.). 
It would cost more, but you'd get someone that knew what was going on. Maybe 
they're smart enough to check Ethernet port status, BGP session status, know 
what a good wireless connection is from a bad one, etc.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Adam Moffett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:39:32 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff will be.  
They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever troubleshooting steps 
you give them to follow.  They can do basic billing and sales stuff as long as 
you give them the information they need to do that.  You can't expect them to 
figure out anything that would require knowledge of your network, and to be 
frank I would try to keep your expectations as low as possible.  Write them a 
troubleshooting guide as if you were writing it for an idiot.be specific 
and clear and provide pictures. 

Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account for 
that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the call center 
tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which happens to be a 
licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once they figure out that the 
only thing the call center can do for them is open a ticket that you won't see 
until the morning.  One way to address that is make the first step in the 
troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly invoices, if it's greater 
than $500 then stop here and call our cell phones until we wake up".

All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can shield you 
from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident and only send them 
the overnight calls. 



On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

  interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even better 
with actual tech support

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:

I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then 
taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being able to 
call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a one-way street, 
you can’t go back.

Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give 
them something nice and then try to take it back.


From: Jeremy 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize 
that these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen.  They are 
willing to answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone 
calls in and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer 
needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.   

Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will 
never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate.  Not 
to mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you end up 
with a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls simultaneously, 
and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold myself and am 
working on switching right now.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year? 

  whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle 
and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific circumstance, 
and a ticket? Presales info?

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy  wrote:

$2.00 per customer per month.  

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:

  what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering 
our industries phones? 


  -- 

  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

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

2016-02-04 Thread Jeremy

Server Plus said they switched away from that model to a flat rate when I
talked to them at WISPAPALOZA, and had them send me the contract last month.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> They have different rates. $/customer, $/call, $/minute, etc.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jeremy" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 3, 2016 10:55:12 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
>
> That is the price of Server Plus.
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
>> That's pricey, who was that?
>> On Feb 3, 2016 10:08 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:
>>
>>> $2.00 per customer per month.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 what kind of dough gets paid for call centers capable of answering our
 industries phones?


 --
 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] Mimosa B11

Far far too hot. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jaime Solorza"  
To: "Animal Farm"  
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:58:01 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11 


move to Phxwarmer 




Jaime Solorza 
Wireless Systems Architect 
915-861-1390 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




I don't have many places where I can even get a half of that. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Josh Luthman" < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:54:54 PM 


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11 


160 MHz? Must be nice. 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Feb 4, 2016 9:52 PM, "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 


5 miles 
2x80 
3' 
2ms 
980Mbps 



-Original Message- 
From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Matt 
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:18 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11 

> We have one of the links up and it’s been solid. I haven’t touched it 
> since it went in a couple months ago. 

What is distance, channel size, dish size, latency and throughput? 


> 
> 
> 
> From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:08 PM 
> To: af < af@afmug.com > 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11 
> 
> 
> 
> hmm... I probably don't want to put one up before Q2 anyway... I 
> suppose I should start working on getting it licensed fairly soon. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc 
> (ICI) < t...@franklinisp.net > wrote: 
> 
> Waiting for six full links 
> 
> 
> 
> I got a call and was told they have pushed the date back again. EOM? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyson Burris, President 
> Internet Communications Inc. 
> 739 Commerce Dr. 
> Franklin, IN 46131 
> 
> 317-738-0320 Daytime # 
> 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct # 
> Online: www.surfici.net 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers! 
> 
> 
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 
> 
> Are these things shipping yet, and is anyone here using them? 
> 
>

[AFMUG] Interesting

While typing a site survey report for a MAS client, I came upon this nifty
quick and easy list
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?=47:5.0.1.1.7.3.171.1=div8

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11

move to Phxwarmer

Jaime Solorza
Wireless Systems Architect
915-861-1390

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I don't have many places where I can even get a half of that.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Luthman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:54:54 PM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>
> 160 MHz?  Must be nice.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Feb 4, 2016 9:52 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
>> 5 miles
>> 2x80
>> 3'
>> 2ms
>> 980Mbps
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:18 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>>
>> > We have one of the links up and it’s been solid.  I haven’t touched it
>> > since it went in a couple months ago.
>>
>> What is distance, channel size, dish size, latency and throughput?
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:08 PM
>> > To: af 
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > hmm... I probably don't want to put one up before Q2 anyway... I
>> > suppose I should start working on getting it licensed fairly soon.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>> > (ICI)  wrote:
>> >
>> > Waiting for six full links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I got a call and was told they have pushed the date back again.  EOM?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tyson Burris, President
>> > Internet Communications Inc.
>> > 739 Commerce Dr.
>> > Franklin, IN 46131
>> >
>> > 317-738-0320 Daytime #
>> > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
>> > Online: www.surfici.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>> >
>> >
>> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>> >
>> > Are these things shipping yet, and is anyone here using them?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11

6 bits per Hz isn't bad at all though.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Feb 4, 2016 10:48 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I don't have many places where I can even get a half of that.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Josh Luthman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:54:54 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>
> 160 MHz?  Must be nice.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> On Feb 4, 2016 9:52 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>
>> 5 miles
>> 2x80
>> 3'
>> 2ms
>> 980Mbps
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:18 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>>
>> > We have one of the links up and it’s been solid.  I haven’t touched it
>> > since it went in a couple months ago.
>>
>> What is distance, channel size, dish size, latency and throughput?
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:08 PM
>> > To: af 
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > hmm... I probably don't want to put one up before Q2 anyway... I
>> > suppose I should start working on getting it licensed fairly soon.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>> > (ICI)  wrote:
>> >
>> > Waiting for six full links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I got a call and was told they have pushed the date back again.  EOM?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tyson Burris, President
>> > Internet Communications Inc.
>> > 739 Commerce Dr.
>> > Franklin, IN 46131
>> >
>> > 317-738-0320 Daytime #
>> > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
>> > Online: www.surfici.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>> >
>> >
>> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mathew Howard  wrote:
>> >
>> > Are these things shipping yet, and is anyone here using them?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps

Yeah, was looking at those.

I don’t have anything in that will handle those optics.

I can do QSFP+ 40km optics times two for 80Gbps for fairly cheap.

But one leg is longer than that, though I may be able to break it up into two 
segments.

How much is a switch that can handle two 100Gbps ports?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps


http://www.fs.com/c/100g-transceivers_1159
On Feb 5, 2016 12:01 AM, "Sterling Jacobson" 
> wrote:
So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a 100Gbps line.

What would that be priced at?

I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get end to end.

Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet?

Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing?

Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps

2016-02-04 Thread George Skorup


Why I'm gettin only 97Gbps!? Fix mah innernet!

On 2/5/2016 12:07 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:


Do you have gear that can handle 100Gbps optics?

I just put my new baby in today.

On Feb 5, 2016 12:01 AM, "Sterling Jacobson" > wrote:


So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a
100Gbps line.

What would that be priced at?

I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get end
to end.

Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet?

Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing?

Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps

I remember when an entire city had a 10Gbps backbone and they were like, “This 
will last forever!”

Now I do a speedtest.net on my desktop and push 8000Mbps, lol!

Not that I use that much ever, but a pair of machines end to end can load it up 
like that kinda blows my mind.

Five years from now, maybe I’ll have a 100Gbps SFP module in my desktop running 
a test at 97Gbps, lol!

And we’ll search this email post years later and look back at the ‘good ol days 
of 1Gbps connections per user’.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:15 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps

Why I'm gettin only 97Gbps!? Fix mah innernet!
On 2/5/2016 12:07 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:

Do you have gear that can handle 100Gbps optics?

I just put my new baby in today.
On Feb 5, 2016 12:01 AM, "Sterling Jacobson" 
> wrote:
So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a 100Gbps line.

What would that be priced at?

I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get end to end.

Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet?

Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing?

Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11

I miss Phx :(

Used to live in Tempe / Mesa
On Feb 4, 2016 9:58 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

> move to Phxwarmer
>
> Jaime Solorza
> Wireless Systems Architect
> 915-861-1390
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> I don't have many places where I can even get a half of that.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Josh Luthman" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:54:54 PM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>>
>> 160 MHz?  Must be nice.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> On Feb 4, 2016 9:52 PM, "Rory Conaway"  wrote:
>>
>>> 5 miles
>>> 2x80
>>> 3'
>>> 2ms
>>> 980Mbps
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 6:18 PM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>>>
>>> > We have one of the links up and it’s been solid.  I haven’t touched it
>>> > since it went in a couple months ago.
>>>
>>> What is distance, channel size, dish size, latency and throughput?
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 3:08 PM
>>> > To: af 
>>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mimosa B11
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > hmm... I probably don't want to put one up before Q2 anyway... I
>>> > suppose I should start working on getting it licensed fairly soon.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>>> > (ICI)  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Waiting for six full links
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I got a call and was told they have pushed the date back again.  EOM?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tyson Burris, President
>>> > Internet Communications Inc.
>>> > 739 Commerce Dr.
>>> > Franklin, IN 46131
>>> >
>>> > 317-738-0320 Daytime #
>>> > 317-412-1540 Cell/Direct #
>>> > Online: www.surfici.net
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Mathew Howard 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Are these things shipping yet, and is anyone here using them?
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] 100Gbps

http://www.fs.com/c/100g-transceivers_1159
On Feb 5, 2016 12:01 AM, "Sterling Jacobson"  wrote:

> So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a 100Gbps line.
>
> What would that be priced at?
>
> I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get end to end.
>
> Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet?
>
> Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing?
>

[AFMUG] 100Gbps

So... Let's just say, for a minute, that I could sell Adobe a 100Gbps line.

What would that be priced at?

I think I can do it technically with a pair of fiber I can get end to end.

Are their LD optics at 100Gbps yet?

Or are we still talking dense wave multiplexing?

Re: [AFMUG] SonicWall or Fortinet for Business Firewall

2016-02-04 Thread Justin Wilson

Any type of firewall like this you need to be very mindful of the product 
lifecycle.  Most issues arise when folks don’t keep up on service contracts or 
are using EOL hardware.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

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

http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> Fortinet. Sonicwall is quite a "joke" and has been that way for many moons.
> 
> On Feb 4, 2016 8:08 AM, "Wireless Administrator"  > wrote:
> I have a business customer that will be replacing their existing Firewall and 
> is considering Fortinet rather than SonicWall.  Seems like UTM (Unified 
> Threat Management) is the buzz word that replaced Deep Packet Inspection from 
> days gone by.  Does anyone have an opinion on which company has the better 
> product.  A web search on this subject produces many links to pages that 
> share similar language, almost like one person did a review and others are 
> just repeating the original results.
> 
>  
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
>  
> 
> Steve B.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a telco 
from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the whole thing.  
It has already happened and will happen much more in the future as the FCC 
reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage that takes away their 
support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you truly serve or can serve in 
7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change to 25 down) can bring grief.  
There is no upside to claiming more than you can do on a 477 turf wise or speed 
wise but there is a big downside.  

From: Cameron Crum 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be 
surgically accurate. 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos 
challenging your coverage data.  

  From: Dennis Burgess 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.  



  The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.  
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.   
Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..  



  Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

  den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
  Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?



  +1000 
  for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and 
  the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations. 
  We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
  U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could 
only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)


   

  On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
wrote:



  Hmmm.news to me 



  Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone



  - Reply message -
  From: "Josh Luthman" 
  To: 
  Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
  Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM



  Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

  On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps 
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is pulling 
this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year and 
have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
 wrote:



  suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean 
powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)



- Original Message - 

From: Dennis Burgess 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?



Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing 
is the same as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer 
questions as well as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call 
or e-mail. 





Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy 
/sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?



wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it used to be, 
still expensive if you wanted to plot every antenna, but omni will get you the 
gist of it. hopefully their support is better than a repetitive canned response 
now



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

Embarrassing accidents have been known to happen.

RIP David Carradine

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 wrote:
> Problematic to address when problem staff have the same last name as owners
>
> Even more problematic when that environment generates an environment where
> non similar monikers lack any accountability
>
> I could go on and on about this, but I still believe that if you bully
> through and issue and drink heavy enough in your off hours you can find
> solutions to fix things from the inside
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>>
>> My honest assessment of the problem you describe is that your $dayjob
>> is hiring mongoloid windowlickers.
>>
>> I have neither the time to waste nor the crayons to explain shit to
>> people like that. Either you carry your weight and earn $goodpay or
>> you're simply a liability causing us to spend more money than you are
>> generating for us.
>>
>> Sorry for the technical jargon, I'll try to keep it in layman's terms next
>> time.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>>  wrote:
>> > This is the exact problem I want to negate.
>> >
>> > Im currently rewriting yet another troubleshooting guide that no one
>> > will
>> > follow, (irritates me, I made a powercode specific one a few years ago
>> > that
>> > other powercode users liked, but it never even got handed to our in
>> > house
>> > staff) specifically because they have just enough knowledge of our
>> > systems
>> > to be idiots. They bypass power cycling because powercode shows the
>> > radio in
>> > bad status, only the reason its in bad status is because of something
>> > dumb
>> > like a 10mb ethernet connection, that the first step is what?
>> > powercycling,
>> > instead it becomes a ticket for "techs to look at"
>> >
>> > Or they tell the customer to power cycle with no instruction, i get on
>> > and
>> > the system has a 6 month uptime.
>> >
>> > We had an on staff customer service/tier 1 tech, dont know what the pay
>> > was,
>> > but it had to be minimum wage, that got us 8 hours 5 days of useless
>> > support
>> > and the inability to do the simplest of sales tasks like asking a
>> > business
>> > customer whether they need a static IP. The only loss to outsourcing is
>> > theres not a guy you can have deliver parts somewhere.
>> >
>> > It pisses me off to come in to a bunch of open tickets that could have
>> > been
>> > handled up to a point of legitimate escalation in 3-10 minutes on the
>> > phone.
>> >
>> > Its a good point though about the high tier customers being handled
>> > delicately with a prompt escalation.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Adam Moffett 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff
>> >> will
>> >> be.  They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever
>> >> troubleshooting steps you give them to follow.  They can do basic
>> >> billing
>> >> and sales stuff as long as you give them the information they need to
>> >> do
>> >> that.  You can't expect them to figure out anything that would require
>> >> knowledge of your network, and to be frank I would try to keep your
>> >> expectations as low as possible.  Write them a troubleshooting guide as
>> >> if
>> >> you were writing it for an idiot.be specific and clear and provide
>> >> pictures.
>> >>
>> >> Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to
>> >> account
>> >> for that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the
>> >> call
>> >> center tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which
>> >> happens
>> >> to be a licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once they
>> >> figure
>> >> out that the only thing the call center can do for them is open a
>> >> ticket
>> >> that you won't see until the morning.  One way to address that is make
>> >> the
>> >> first step in the troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly
>> >> invoices, if it's greater than $500 then stop here and call our cell
>> >> phones
>> >> until we wake up".
>> >>
>> >> All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can
>> >> shield
>> >> you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident and
>> >> only
>> >> send them the overnight calls.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>> >>
>> >> interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even
>> >> better with actual tech support
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and
>> >>> then
>> >>> taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to
>> >>> being able
>> >>> to call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a
>> >>> one-way
>> >>> street, you can’t go back.
>> >>>
>> >>> Because

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Not sure how they would do “drive testing”.  You actually have experienced this 
happening?  Or you mean challenges?  I thought they were using the lazy method 
like assuming if no one had ported out a POTS line to you, then you couldn’t 
possibly have service.

But what I do is populate my deployment data from my actual subscription at the 
block level.  So if someone challenges if I can serve that block, I have a 
pretty good rebuttal because I already have customers there.  Then I will only 
add blocks from RF propagation mapping after a manual check that yes, I could 
serve that block if someone called, and I have some idea why I don’t have any 
customers there yet.  That can also prod you to do some advertising in those 
areas where you have deployment but no subscription.


From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a telco 
from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the whole thing.  
It has already happened and will happen much more in the future as the FCC 
reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage that takes away their 
support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you truly serve or can serve in 
7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change to 25 down) can bring grief.  
There is no upside to claiming more than you can do on a 477 turf wise or speed 
wise but there is a big downside.  

From: Cameron Crum 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be 
surgically accurate. 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos 
challenging your coverage data.  

  From: Dennis Burgess 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.  



  The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.  
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.   
Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..  



  Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

  den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
  Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?



  +1000 
  for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and 
  the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations. 
  We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
  U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could 
only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)


   

  On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
wrote:



  Hmmm.news to me 



  Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone



  - Reply message -
  From: "Josh Luthman" 
  To: 
  Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
  Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM



  Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

  On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps 
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is pulling 
this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year and 
have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
 wrote:



  suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean 
powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)



- Original Message - 

From: Dennis Burgess 

To: af@afmug.com 

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using

Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

Probably the data you submit on Form 477 should be conservative and the 
coverage map you put on your website should be optimistic.  Better the 
prospective customer calls in and you say oops we can’t get you service but we 
can put you on a waiting list in case we add towers, than someone you could 
serve doesn’t even call.

I don’t think many people use the national broadband map to find service.


From: Cameron Crum 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 1:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

We can base them off of viewsheds which tell you where you have LOS at a given 
elevation. That is a guarantee for service as long as the data is correct and 
your clutter values are close. However, we did study this VS the radius 
approach and the difference was not enough to matter. Again it comes down to 
how much of an area is considered covered. If the viewshed touched a block at 
all it was counted. There were very few cases where a block under a reasonable 
radius did not also show up under a viewshed with the same "cut-off" radius. 
Prop tools all have a cut-off radius as well. 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  The cheapest method is to just submit 477 data that  you are 90% certain you 
can actually serve.  You might look up the serving area if the ILECs  in your 
areas.  If you claim via 477 that you serve their whole area or most of it, you 
will probably get a challenge.  

  From: Cameron Crum 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:56 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

  What Brian is talking about is what carriers do to model tune (sometimes). It 
is labor intensive and expensive and must be done with care. I would highly 
doubt most wisps have the time or resources to do something like this. I wonder 
what the value is as an insurance policy vs submitting with a "rougher" 
approach and then proving once you are challenged? 

  On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Pretty sure the FCC would accept this if you did enough samples to prove 
the RF model.

-Original Message- From: Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing 


The most practical way to accomplish this would be to just validate your RF 
model assumptions and then apply them to the fixed wireless propagation. As you 
mentioned there is no practical way to test 22 foot CPE install heights let 
alone the additional gain that a fixed CPE antenna provides as compared to some 
sort of radio you could practically have on a mobile platform. While you could 
go out and spot check with a push up mast that can be time consuming when it 
comes to gathering a significant number of sample points.

The easier method would be to run an RF propagation with CPE parameters of 
a device you can install on a mobile unit and drive around with. You could then 
drive the areas that you predicted this coverage for and gather that data in a 
text file. Ideally you would do the same drive multiple times and under various 
climate conditions and seasonal changes. This would give you sample points that 
you can compare the measured to the predicted. I would do this in a GIS 
platform and create a delta table and map showing variations between predicted 
versus measured. I would also have the data for each clutter/tree class. This 
would allow me to investigate to see if there are consistent delta differences 
and if they only appear to be variations with certain clutter or if they 
predictions are off consistently for the whole predicted area. This would then 
point me in the proper direction to make changes in my RF tool, system wide 
would mean change the percentage numbers in the mode of variability (fade 
margin), major differences in the delta for various clutter classifications 
would tell me I need to adjust my clutter/land cover file settings. Once the 
model is tuned to your satisfaction you can then run your fixed CPE 
propagations with a lot better confidence factor.

One thing to look out for though is the land cover data being used. I have 
both the latest and the next oldest clutter data for North America. There was 
some sort of formula change to the data in the latest release that created some 
decent sized changes in various parts of the country, this means your predicted 
coverage may be assuming trees or lack of in areas that the reality is 
different than the land cover data. You can get a Google Earth file that shows 
the current vintage land cover map/classification but I am not sure you can do 
the same for older versions. I am fortunate enough to have all of the data on a 
hard drive and can easily switch between the two and compare differences.

Sometimes the old version is better, sometimes it’s the newer version, it 
depends on your location. Sometimes there are clutter classifications for an 
area such as Urban

Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

2016-02-04 Thread Brian Webster

For the record the FCC does not state that you have to serve EVERY address in a 
census block. Their position on the coverage portion of the new 477 process was 
that if you served one spot in the block it was deemed served. Wherever people 
are saying you have to serve the whole block you are not correct. The FCC knows 
the same is true for wireline carriers. The census block method is a compromise 
to determine coverage. They cannot force the carriers to disclose physical 
plant data so the block level is as close as they can get, and just as 
important they know that RF signals will not always get to all portions of a 
census block.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 2:08 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

 

We can base them off of viewsheds which tell you where you have LOS at a given 
elevation. That is a guarantee for service as long as the data is correct and 
your clutter values are close. However, we did study this VS the radius 
approach and the difference was not enough to matter. Again it comes down to 
how much of an area is considered covered. If the viewshed touched a block at 
all it was counted. There were very few cases where a block under a reasonable 
radius did not also show up under a viewshed with the same "cut-off" radius. 
Prop tools all have a cut-off radius as well. 

 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

The cheapest method is to just submit 477 data that  you are 90% certain you 
can actually serve.  You might look up the serving area if the ILECs  in your 
areas.  If you claim via 477 that you serve their whole area or most of it, you 
will probably get a challenge.  

 

From: Cameron Crum   

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:56 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

 

What Brian is talking about is what carriers do to model tune (sometimes). It 
is labor intensive and expensive and must be done with care. I would highly 
doubt most wisps have the time or resources to do something like this. I wonder 
what the value is as an insurance policy vs submitting with a "rougher" 
approach and then proving once you are challenged? 

 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

Pretty sure the FCC would accept this if you did enough samples to prove the RF 
model.

-Original Message- From: Brian Webster
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing 



The most practical way to accomplish this would be to just validate your RF 
model assumptions and then apply them to the fixed wireless propagation. As you 
mentioned there is no practical way to test 22 foot CPE install heights let 
alone the additional gain that a fixed CPE antenna provides as compared to some 
sort of radio you could practically have on a mobile platform. While you could 
go out and spot check with a push up mast that can be time consuming when it 
comes to gathering a significant number of sample points.

The easier method would be to run an RF propagation with CPE parameters of a 
device you can install on a mobile unit and drive around with. You could then 
drive the areas that you predicted this coverage for and gather that data in a 
text file. Ideally you would do the same drive multiple times and under various 
climate conditions and seasonal changes. This would give you sample points that 
you can compare the measured to the predicted. I would do this in a GIS 
platform and create a delta table and map showing variations between predicted 
versus measured. I would also have the data for each clutter/tree class. This 
would allow me to investigate to see if there are consistent delta differences 
and if they only appear to be variations with certain clutter or if they 
predictions are off consistently for the whole predicted area. This would then 
point me in the proper direction to make changes in my RF tool, system wide 
would mean change the percentage numbers in the mode of variability (fade 
margin), major differences in the delta for various clutter classifications 
would tell me I need to adjust my clutter/land cover file settings. Once the 
model is tuned to your satisfaction you can then run your fixed CPE 
propagations with a lot better confidence factor.

One thing to look out for though is the land cover data being used. I have both 
the latest and the next oldest clutter data for North America. There was some 
sort of formula change to the data in the latest release that created some 
decent sized changes in various parts of the country, this means your predicted 
coverage may be assuming trees or lack of in areas that the reality is 
different than the land cover data. You can get a Google Earth file that shows 
the current vintage land cover

Re: [AFMUG] Best long range cost effective hotspot gear

2016-02-04 Thread Jon Auer

We've found that the marketing coverage/range is not a very useful number
when it comes to hotspots. You'll be limited by the client radio long
before that matters.

The more interesting metric (if you are expecting any decent amount of
people) is number of clients per AP under load.
First gen UniFi seems to max out CPU around 30 users and enabling traffic
shaping or captive portal makes that worse.
On Feb 3, 2016 1:59 PM, "Josh Corson"  wrote:

> We are looking at doing 4 separate hot spot set ups; one for a state park,
> campground, and two very small cities.
>
> Assumptions/ Details:
> Going off of a 300-600ft separation on them in our planning (according to
> UniFi APs they will go 600').
>
> My main question is which vendor is the best when it comes to not only
> hardware but the management systems for a captive splash page, billing,
> management, etc.
>
> Three names come to mind (cost effective ones):
> UniFi
> Cambium's new WiFi products
> Open-Mesh
>
> Open-Mesh seems to be too good to be true...mesh outdoor radios for under
> $100 that will go 400-600ft and comes with lifetime CloudTrax software??
> Has anyone used them?
>
> Looking for any and all input on best equipment to use, but not while
> spending $1,000's per node.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
>
> *Josh Corson*
> Operations Manager
> BlueBit Networks
> bluebitnetworks.com
> o. 573.355.5381 c. 573.259.3073
>

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
serve" as a common carrier.


-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
change

to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.

From: Cameron Crum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
surgically accurate.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
telcos

challenging your coverage data.

From: Dennis Burgess
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?


We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.



The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
API.

Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..



Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?



+1000
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
customers it has brought to us and
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
locations.
We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
could

only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)




On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:



Hmmm.news to me



Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone



- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM



Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is 
pulling
this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year 
and

have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
 wrote:



suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean
powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... 
:)




- Original Message -

From: Dennis Burgess

To: af@afmug.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?



Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing is the
same as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer 
questions

as well as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or
e-mail.





Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

A duty to serve... phone... not broadband. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument. They have a "duty to 
serve" as a common carrier. 

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their 
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and 
larger WISPs being total bullshit. 

Is that correct? 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote: 
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a 
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the 
> whole thing. It has already happened and will happen much more in the 
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage 
> that takes away their support. Just sayin, claiming more turf than you 
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
> change 
> to 25 down) can bring grief. There is no upside to claiming more than you 
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside. 
> 
> From: Cameron Crum 
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM 
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 
> 
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be 
> surgically accurate. 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote: 
>> 
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
>> filings. You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
>> telcos 
>> challenging your coverage data. 
>> 
>> From: Dennis Burgess 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM 
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 
>> 
>> 
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications. 
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
>> API. 
>> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up .. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. 
>> 
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM 
>> To: af@afmug.com 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> +1000 
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a 
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of 
>> customers it has brought to us and 
>> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. 
>> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site 
>> locations. 
>> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
>> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
>> could 
>> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :) 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 
>> 
>> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com 
>> 
>> Josh Luthman 
>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>> 1100 Wayne St 
>> Suite 1337 
>> Troy, OH 45373 
>> 
>> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
>> wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hmmm.news to me 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - Reply message - 
>> From: "Josh Luthman"  
>> To:  
>> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com? 
>> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Uh you can dude. Been a while since they enabled that. 
>> 
>> Josh Luthman 
>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>> 1100 Wayne St 
>> Suite 1337 
>> Troy, OH 45373 
>> 
>> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote: 
>> 
>> This. So much this. Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps 
>> coordinates, and everything. That should really be the next step is 
>> pulling 
>> this info for integration. I have had an active account for like a year 
>> and 
>> have never used it. I just don't have the time to add it all. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
>>  wrote: 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

Ok, that makes sense.

That router was searching IP's that were not available, and coming up short.

On my end it was probably just a loop or pathing problem that causes ARP to not 
respond across the network temporarily.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Englhardt
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

What's new in 6.33.5 (2015-Dec-28 09:13):

[...]
*) arp - show incomplete ARP entries;
[...]




-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Faisal Imtiaz
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 16:32
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

Thanks, that would explain it.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Dennis Burgess" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:04:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

> All zeros means it sent a ARP broadcast out but has not received a ARP 
> response.
> 
> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:37 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?
> 
> What version of ROS ?
> 
> I saw something similar on another router a couple of days back.
> It was someone else's router, not sure how they fixed it.
> 
> MT forums suggest to upgrade to 6.34 for the fix..
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:31:49 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?
> 
>> I've never seen this, but a router I am using is filling up it's ARP 
>> table with Zeros on available IP's.
>> 
>> As shown in the picture.
>> 
>> This is a very simple routeros setup with one ether1 interface 
>> bridged with a few EoIP tunnels
>> 
>> Obviously somewhere in the network I'm doing something quite wrong 
>> and it's causing this routers ARP table to register as all Zeros.
>> 
>> These are active device IP's, so only the ones that SHOULD have MAC's 
>> are showing, but their MACs are all Zeros.
>> 
>> Just want to see if anyone has a general idea of what causes this on
> > RouterOS so I know where to start looking.

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 13.4 bug

2016-02-04 Thread Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr.

I just came across this thread after I upgraded several towers to 13.4 
the other day (I am slow at adoption). I am having this symptom with my 
radius authenticated PmP450 towers. The APs say registering and the SMs 
show registered but have not gotten all the radius attributes that I 
pass. This seems to be a bug on the AP side because as soon as I drop 
down in software version on the AP, the issue goes away.


Questions...
1. Where do I get 13.4.1 since I no longer show it on Cambium's site? 
Also are there any stability issues with 13.4.1?
2. If I upgrade to 14.1.1, does that solve this bug as well? Also are 
there any issues I should worry about going to 14.1.1?


Thanks,
Gilbert

On 10/21/2015 9:09 AM, Chitrang Srivastava wrote:

Hi Matt,

Please try 13.401 open beta,  there is this particular issue seen with RADIUS 
authentication,  SM goes into registering state,  Data traffic is stopped.

With 13.4.1 this is fixed.

Thanks,
Chitrang

From: Af  on behalf of Matt 
Sent: 21 October 2015 21:31:18
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Canopy 13.4 bug

What exactly is this bug?

SMï¿½s in ï¿½Registering Mode will now register

Is 13.4.1 beta stable or should we stay at 13.4?

[AFMUG] Drive Testing

I was thinking about this during my drive to work today, and the 
towercoverage.com thread just reminded me.


Is there a realistic way to do drive testing for fixed wireless?

I've plotted coverage using a 22' subscriber height, and I can't drive 
around with a 22' high mast (vehicles and loads have a 13'6" height 
limit in NY State).  So rather than collecting data as I drive --which 
would be relatively painless-- I'd have to stop, deploy a mast, record 
coord and reading, un-deploy mast, move to next test point, repeat.


I think I could set a drone to a 22' flight ceiling.  I'd still have to 
drive the drone to different places because it will only work within 
range of the controller.


Or maybe forget about drive testing.is there a realistic way to 
validate your coverage map other than attempting installations and 
seeing which ones work?


If you're wondering why, I've been asked by some officials "how do you 
validate this coverage projection?"  All I've really got is that we 
attempt installs and they usually work where they're supposed to.

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

There are already FCC cases on the books where both sides did drive testing and 
the WISP lost.  
Based on subscription level should be fine.  Some wisps just draw a 20 mile arc 
around each AP and call it good.  Those will be challenged.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Not sure how they would do “drive testing”.  You actually have experienced this 
happening?  Or you mean challenges?  I thought they were using the lazy method 
like assuming if no one had ported out a POTS line to you, then you couldn’t 
possibly have service.

But what I do is populate my deployment data from my actual subscription at the 
block level.  So if someone challenges if I can serve that block, I have a 
pretty good rebuttal because I already have customers there.  Then I will only 
add blocks from RF propagation mapping after a manual check that yes, I could 
serve that block if someone called, and I have some idea why I don’t have any 
customers there yet.  That can also prod you to do some advertising in those 
areas where you have deployment but no subscription.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a telco 
from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the whole thing.  
It has already happened and will happen much more in the future as the FCC 
reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage that takes away their 
support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you truly serve or can serve in 
7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change to 25 down) can bring grief.  
There is no upside to claiming more than you can do on a 477 turf wise or speed 
wise but there is a big downside.  

From: Cameron Crum 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be 
surgically accurate. 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos 
challenging your coverage data.  

  From: Dennis Burgess 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.  

  The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.  
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.   
Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..  

  Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

  den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
  Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  +1000 
  for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and 
  the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations. 
  We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
  U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could 
only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)

  On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
wrote:

  Hmmm.news to me 

  Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

  - Reply message -
  From: "Josh Luthman" 
  To: 
  Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
  Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM

  Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

  On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps 
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is pulling 
this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year and 
have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
 wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] Drive Testing

I think Ken's method is bullet proof.  

-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:10 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Drive Testing 

I was thinking about this during my drive to work today, and the 
towercoverage.com thread just reminded me.

Is there a realistic way to do drive testing for fixed wireless?

I've plotted coverage using a 22' subscriber height, and I can't drive 
around with a 22' high mast (vehicles and loads have a 13'6" height 
limit in NY State).  So rather than collecting data as I drive --which 
would be relatively painless-- I'd have to stop, deploy a mast, record 
coord and reading, un-deploy mast, move to next test point, repeat.

I think I could set a drone to a 22' flight ceiling.  I'd still have to 
drive the drone to different places because it will only work within 
range of the controller.

Or maybe forget about drive testing.is there a realistic way to 
validate your coverage map other than attempting installations and 
seeing which ones work?

If you're wondering why, I've been asked by some officials "how do you 
validate this coverage projection?"  All I've really got is that we 
attempt installs and they usually work where they're supposed to.

Re: [AFMUG] Canopy 13.4 bug

2016-02-04 Thread Sean Heskett

13.2.1 is the latest release that I consider stable.

13.4 has the issues you stated plus some others

14.1.1 has too many issues to list

-Sean


On Thursday, February 4, 2016, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. <
mailing-li...@phxinternet.com> wrote:

> I just came across this thread after I upgraded several towers to 13.4 the
> other day (I am slow at adoption). I am having this symptom with my radius
> authenticated PmP450 towers. The APs say registering and the SMs show
> registered but have not gotten all the radius attributes that I pass. This
> seems to be a bug on the AP side because as soon as I drop down in software
> version on the AP, the issue goes away.
>
> Questions...
> 1. Where do I get 13.4.1 since I no longer show it on Cambium's site? Also
> are there any stability issues with 13.4.1?
> 2. If I upgrade to 14.1.1, does that solve this bug as well? Also are
> there any issues I should worry about going to 14.1.1?
>
> Thanks,
> Gilbert
>
> On 10/21/2015 9:09 AM, Chitrang Srivastava wrote:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Please try 13.401 open beta,  there is this particular issue seen with
>> RADIUS authentication,  SM goes into registering state,  Data traffic is
>> stopped.
>>
>> With 13.4.1 this is fixed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Chitrang
>> 
>> From: Af  on behalf of Matt <
>> matt.mailingli...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 21 October 2015 21:31:18
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Canopy 13.4 bug
>>
>> What exactly is this bug?
>>
>> SMï¿½s in ï¿½Registering Mode will now register
>>
>> Is 13.4.1 beta stable or should we stay at 13.4?
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos 
challenging your coverage data.  

From: Dennis Burgess 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.  

The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.  I.e. 
you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.   Just 
a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..  

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

+1000 
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and 
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations. 
We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could only 
sell TV i would have it in the bag :)

On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

  It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

  On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  wrote:

Hmmm.news to me 

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM

Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

  This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps 
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is pulling 
this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year and 
have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
 wrote:

suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean 
powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)

  - Original Message - 

  From: Dennis Burgess 

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

  Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing is 
the same as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer questions 
as well as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or 
e-mail. 

  Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

  den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy 
/sarcasm
  Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

  wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it used to be, 
still expensive if you wanted to plot every antenna, but omni will get you the 
gist of it. hopefully their support is better than a repetitive canned response 
now

  On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
 wrote:

$25/mo is not much.  I strongly recommend signing up for it simply 
for the EUS form.  If you get ONE customer out of the purchase, you made money. 
 Any more than that is gravy.

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

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Tim Reichhart 
 wrote:

  Who on this list is using towercoverage.com? I want to know how 
accurate it is because I have an account now with them and I am doubt its very 
accurate to give out an good signal from my tower. Because I really hate 
spending 25 dollars per month and its not going to be accurate.

  Tim

Re: [AFMUG] Check-in service for field technicians

2016-02-04 Thread Eric Muehleisen

Our techs are instructed to contact the NOC before and after they
arrive onsite. The tech supplies the ETA to the NOC and the NOC
follows up at the given ETA.

Our NOC is staffed 24x7. YMMV.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Steve D  wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I want to evaluate some different options for field tech's to check-in with.
> Right now, we rely on our support staff to not "forget" that a tech missed
> his ETA to return home at night, but it does happen sometimes.  I'd like to
> eliminate human error.  Ideally, something that they can phone into, email,
> sms or website.  And obviously, if a check-in is missed, automated
> notifications are sent to a list of contacts, escalating with time.
>
> Anyone use anything like this and have recommendations?
>
> -Steve D

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

2016-02-04 Thread David

+1000
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a 
custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of 
customers it has brought to us and
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. 
Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site 
locations.

We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
 U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
could only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)

On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com 

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" > wrote:

Hmmm.news to me

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" >
To: >
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com
?
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM

Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy" > wrote:

This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths,
downtilt, gps coordinates, and everything.  That should really
be the next step is pulling this info for integration.  I have
had an active account for like a year and have never used it. 
I just don't have the time to add it all.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
>
wrote:

suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from
pokeycode, i mean powercode, and automatically populate
all our towers in towercoverage... :)

- Original Message -
*From:* Dennis Burgess 
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com
?

Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions. 
The pricing is the same as since its inception, we

have a dedicated staff to answer questions as well as
take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to
call or e-mail.

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net –
314-735-0270 x103  –
www.linktechs.net 

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *That One
Guy /sarcasm
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com
?

wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it
used to be, still expensive if you wanted to plot
every antenna, but omni will get you the gist of it.
hopefully their support is better than a repetitive
canned response now

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman
> wrote:

$25/mo is not much.  I strongly recommend signing
up for it simply for the EUS form.  If you get ONE
customer out of the purchase, you made money.  Any
more than that is gravy.

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

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Tim Reichhart
> wrote:

Who on this list is using towercoverage.com
? I want to know how
accurate it is because I have an account now
with them and I am doubt its very accurate to
give out an good signal from my tower. Because
I really

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

2016-02-04 Thread Dennis Burgess

We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.

The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.  I.e. 
you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.   Just 
a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – 
www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

+1000
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations.
We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
 U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could 
only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)

On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
> wrote:

Hmmm.news to me

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
>
To: >
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM

Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy" 
> wrote:
This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps 
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is pulling 
this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year and 
have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller 
> wrote:

suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean powercode, 
and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)

- Original Message -
From: Dennis Burgess
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing is the same 
as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer questions as well 
as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or e-mail.

Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 
x103 – www.linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?

wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than it used to be, still 
expensive if you wanted to plot every antenna, but omni will get you the gist 
of it. hopefully their support is better than a repetitive canned response now

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
$25/mo is not much.  I strongly recommend signing up for it simply for the EUS 
form.  If you get ONE customer out of the purchase, you made money.  Any more 
than that is gravy.

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

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Tim Reichhart 
> wrote:
Who on this list is using towercoverage.com? I want 
to know how accurate it is because I have an account now with them and I am 
doubt its very accurate to give out an good signal from my tower. Because I 
really hate spending 25 dollars per month and its not going to be accurate.

Tim

--
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] SonicWall or Fortinet for Business Firewall

2016-02-04 Thread Wireless Administrator

I have a business customer that will be replacing their existing Firewall
and is considering Fortinet rather than SonicWall.  Seems like UTM (Unified
Threat Management) is the buzz word that replaced Deep Packet Inspection
from days gone by.  Does anyone have an opinion on which company has the
better product.  A web search on this subject produces many links to pages
that share similar language, almost like one person did a review and others
are just repeating the original results.

 

Your thoughts?

 

Steve B.

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

This is the exact problem I want to negate.

Im currently rewriting yet another troubleshooting guide that no one will
follow, (irritates me, I made a powercode specific one a few years ago that
other powercode users liked, but it never even got handed to our in house
staff) specifically because they have just enough knowledge of our systems
to be idiots. They bypass power cycling because powercode shows the radio
in bad status, only the reason its in bad status is because of something
dumb like a 10mb ethernet connection, that the first step is what?
powercycling, instead it becomes a ticket for "techs to look at"

Or they tell the customer to power cycle with no instruction, i get on and
the system has a 6 month uptime.

We had an on staff customer service/tier 1 tech, dont know what the pay
was, but it had to be minimum wage, that got us 8 hours 5 days of useless
support and the inability to do the simplest of sales tasks like asking a
business customer whether they need a static IP. The only loss to
outsourcing is theres not a guy you can have deliver parts somewhere.

It pisses me off to come in to a bunch of open tickets that could have been
handled up to a point of legitimate escalation in 3-10 minutes on the
phone.

Its a good point though about the high tier customers being handled
delicately with a prompt escalation.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff will
> be.  They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever
> troubleshooting steps you give them to follow.  They can do basic billing
> and sales stuff as long as you give them the information they need to do
> that.  You can't expect them to figure out anything that would require
> knowledge of your network, and to be frank I would try to keep your
> expectations as low as possible.  Write them a troubleshooting guide as if
> you were writing it for an idiot.be specific and clear and provide
> pictures.
>
> Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account
> for that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the call
> center tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which happens
> to be a licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once they figure
> out that the only thing the call center can do for them is open a ticket
> that you won't see until the morning.  One way to address that is make the
> first step in the troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly
> invoices, if it's greater than $500 then stop here and call our cell phones
> until we wake up".
>
> All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can shield
> you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident and only
> send them the overnight calls.
>
>
> On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even
> better with actual tech support
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
>
>> I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and then
>> taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to being
>> able to call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a
>> one-way street, you can’t go back.
>>
>> Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever give
>> them something nice and then try to take it back.
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jeremy 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
>>
>> Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to realize
>> that these are tech support guys...they aren't really salesmen.  They are
>> willing to answer some questions, and will schedule an install when someone
>> calls in and says "I want to be installed on X day"...but when the customer
>> needs to 'be sold' don't expect any big numbers.
>>
>> Still, when you add it up.  1,000 customers at $2,000 a month...you will
>> never hire ONE employee at minimum wage to answer your calls at that rate.
>> Not to mention that employee will only work 8 hours a day.  This route, you
>> end up with a call center that has 15 or 20 techs that can take calls
>> simultaneously, and it runs 24 hours.  If you can't tell I've already sold
>> myself and am working on switching right now.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 9:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> so for 1k customers youd be looking at 24k per year?
>>>
>>> whats a 2 dollar service get you? basic tier 1 tech support (powercycle
>>> and a ticket)? basic billing stuff, take payments under specific
>>> circumstance, and a ticket? Presales info?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Jeremy < 
>>> jeremysmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 $2.00 per customer per month.

 On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, That

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Oh, well, yeah, the basic circles are losers. I think using due diligence with 
RF prediction tools would be reasonable. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:10:48 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 




There are already FCC cases on the books where both sides did drive testing and 
the WISP lost. 
Based on subscription level should be fine. Some wisps just draw a 20 mile arc 
around each AP and call it good. Those will be challenged. 




From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:34 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 




Not sure how they would do “drive testing”. You actually have experienced this 
happening? Or you mean challenges? I thought they were using the lazy method 
like assuming if no one had ported out a POTS line to you, then you couldn’t 
possibly have service. 

But what I do is populate my deployment data from my actual subscription at the 
block level. So if someone challenges if I can serve that block, I have a 
pretty good rebuttal because I already have customers there. Then I will only 
add blocks from RF propagation mapping after a manual check that yes, I could 
serve that block if someone called, and I have some idea why I don’t have any 
customers there yet. That can also prod you to do some advertising in those 
areas where you have deployment but no subscription. 





From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:56 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 




If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a telco 
from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the whole thing. 
It has already happened and will happen much more in the future as the FCC 
reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage that takes away their 
support. Just sayin, claiming more turf than you truly serve or can serve in 
7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change to 25 down) can bring grief. 
There is no upside to claiming more than you can do on a 477 turf wise or speed 
wise but there is a big downside. 




From: Cameron Crum 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com? 


I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be 
surgically accurate. 


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
filings. You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos 
challenging your coverage data. 




From: Dennis Burgess 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM 


To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com ? 





We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways. 

The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications. I.e. 
you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API. Just a 
matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up .. 


Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc. 
den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of David 
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com ? 

+1000 
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and 
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations. 
We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could only 
sell TV i would have it in the bag :) 




On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: 


It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
wrote: 






Hmmm.news to me 



Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone 


- Reply message - 
From: "Josh Luthman" < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
To: < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com ? 
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM 

Uh you can dude. Been a while since they enabled that. 
Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 

On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy" < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > wrote: 



This. So much this. Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps

Re: [AFMUG] Check-in service for field technicians

2016-02-04 Thread Jeremy

Powercode does all of this for us using a mobile app and truck tracking GPS.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Ben Royer  wrote:

> We also have a full time dispatcher, each technician texts in his arrival
> time and departure time.  We also use Fleetmatics, and so if a tech forgets
> to check in, we can go back and look at exactly what time their van arrived
> onsite or left the jobsite.
>
> Thank you,
> Ben Royer, Operations Manager
> Royell Communications, Inc.
> 217-965-3699 www.royell.net
>
> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:42 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Check-in service for field technicians
>
> That's basically what our local Time Warner franchise does.  It also
> doubles as the timeclock.  Arrival time at the first job of the day
> counts as their punch in time.
>
>
> On 2/4/2016 9:38 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
>
>> Our techs are instructed to contact the NOC before and after they
>> arrive onsite. The tech supplies the ETA to the NOC and the NOC
>> follows up at the given ETA.
>>
>> Our NOC is staffed 24x7. YMMV.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Steve D  wrote:
>>
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> I want to evaluate some different options for field tech's to check-in
>>> with.
>>> Right now, we rely on our support staff to not "forget" that a tech
>>> missed
>>> his ETA to return home at night, but it does happen sometimes.  I'd like
>>> to
>>> eliminate human error.  Ideally, something that they can phone into,
>>> email,
>>> sms or website.  And obviously, if a check-in is missed, automated
>>> notifications are sent to a list of contacts, escalating with time.
>>>
>>> Anyone use anything like this and have recommendations?
>>>
>>> -Steve D
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing

Problematic to address when problem staff have the same last name as owners

Even more problematic when that environment generates an environment where
non similar monikers lack any accountability

I could go on and on about this, but I still believe that if you bully
through and issue and drink heavy enough in your off hours you can find
solutions to fix things from the inside

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> My honest assessment of the problem you describe is that your $dayjob
> is hiring mongoloid windowlickers.
>
> I have neither the time to waste nor the crayons to explain shit to
> people like that. Either you carry your weight and earn $goodpay or
> you're simply a liability causing us to spend more money than you are
> generating for us.
>
> Sorry for the technical jargon, I'll try to keep it in layman's terms next
> time.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:13 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>  wrote:
> > This is the exact problem I want to negate.
> >
> > Im currently rewriting yet another troubleshooting guide that no one will
> > follow, (irritates me, I made a powercode specific one a few years ago
> that
> > other powercode users liked, but it never even got handed to our in house
> > staff) specifically because they have just enough knowledge of our
> systems
> > to be idiots. They bypass power cycling because powercode shows the
> radio in
> > bad status, only the reason its in bad status is because of something
> dumb
> > like a 10mb ethernet connection, that the first step is what?
> powercycling,
> > instead it becomes a ticket for "techs to look at"
> >
> > Or they tell the customer to power cycle with no instruction, i get on
> and
> > the system has a 6 month uptime.
> >
> > We had an on staff customer service/tier 1 tech, dont know what the pay
> was,
> > but it had to be minimum wage, that got us 8 hours 5 days of useless
> support
> > and the inability to do the simplest of sales tasks like asking a
> business
> > customer whether they need a static IP. The only loss to outsourcing is
> > theres not a guy you can have deliver parts somewhere.
> >
> > It pisses me off to come in to a bunch of open tickets that could have
> been
> > handled up to a point of legitimate escalation in 3-10 minutes on the
> phone.
> >
> > Its a good point though about the high tier customers being handled
> > delicately with a prompt escalation.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> A call center will never be as good at tech support as your own staff
> will
> >> be.  They can help people reboot, and they can follow whatever
> >> troubleshooting steps you give them to follow.  They can do basic
> billing
> >> and sales stuff as long as you give them the information they need to do
> >> that.  You can't expect them to figure out anything that would require
> >> knowledge of your network, and to be frank I would try to keep your
> >> expectations as low as possible.  Write them a troubleshooting guide as
> if
> >> you were writing it for an idiot.be specific and clear and provide
> >> pictures.
> >>
> >> Also, if you have any high value business accounts, make sure to account
> >> for that somehow.  Your enterprise customers will get riled up if the
> call
> >> center tries to walk them through rebooting their equipment, which
> happens
> >> to be a licensed backhaul and Cisco router.  Even more so once they
> figure
> >> out that the only thing the call center can do for them is open a ticket
> >> that you won't see until the morning.  One way to address that is make
> the
> >> first step in the troubleshooting guide: "look at one of their monthly
> >> invoices, if it's greater than $500 then stop here and call our cell
> phones
> >> until we wake up".
> >>
> >> All that said, it's better to have a warm body on the phone who can
> shield
> >> you from dumb problems.  If nothing else, pay them per incident and only
> >> send them the overnight calls.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/4/2016 12:23 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
> >>
> >> interesting, i anticipated lower level tech, more sales. sounds even
> >> better with actual tech support
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I’m trying to imagine having the phones covered 24/7 for awhile and
> then
> >>> taking it away after the night owls and lonely hearts get used to
> being able
> >>> to call in the middle of the night.  Call center support must be a
> one-way
> >>> street, you can’t go back.
> >>>
> >>> Because customers can accept being treated like dirt, but don’t ever
> give
> >>> them something nice and then try to take it back.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Jeremy
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 10:54 PM
> >>> To: af@afmug.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Call center pricing
> >>>
> >>> Yep, $24K a year.  They will do some basic sales, but you have to
> realize
> >>> that these are

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> From: Cameron Crum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos
>> challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.
>> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> +1000
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
>> customers it has brought to us and
>> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
>> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
>> locations.
>> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
>> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could
>> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.news to me
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> - Reply message -
>> From: "Josh Luthman" 
>> To: 
>> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:
>>
>> This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps
>> coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is pulling
>> this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year and
>> have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean
>> powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.  The pricing is the
>> same as since its inception, we have a dedicated staff to answer questions
>> as well as take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to call or
>> e-mail.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> wow, the pricing

[AFMUG] nifty windows tool

Just came across this
in windows 7 at least search for "problem steps recorder"
Its an automatic screen shot recorder for processes

creates an mht file right there for quick and dirty things
-- 
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] Who is using towercoverage.com?

2016-02-04 Thread Cameron Crum

"I think using due diligence with RF prediction tools would be reasonable"

Certainly it can be a valid approach, but based on which propagation model
with whose parameters and input and at what resolution? There are far too
many variables here for this to be that accurate and I could show you where
a reasonable "radius" gets withn +/- 5% of the same results as a
prediction. We looked at this when they changed the requirement to block
groups and found this to be the case after analyzing about 100 sites in
different parts of the US.



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Oh, well, yeah, the basic circles are losers. I think using due diligence
> with RF prediction tools would be reasonable.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:10:48 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> There are already FCC cases on the books where both sides did drive
> testing and the WISP lost.
> Based on subscription level should be fine.  Some wisps just draw a 20
> mile arc around each AP and call it good.  Those will be challenged.
>
> *From:* Ken Hohhof 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:34 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> Not sure how they would do “drive testing”.  You actually have experienced
> this happening?  Or you mean challenges?  I thought they were using the
> lazy method like assuming if no one had ported out a POTS line to you, then
> you couldn’t possibly have service.
>
> But what I do is populate my deployment data from my actual subscription
> at the block level.  So if someone challenges if I can serve that block, I
> have a pretty good rebuttal because I already have customers there.  Then I
> will only add blocks from RF propagation mapping after a manual check that
> yes, I could serve that block if someone called, and I have some idea why I
> don’t have any customers there yet.  That can also prod you to do some
> advertising in those areas where you have deployment but no subscription.
>
>
> *From:* Chuck McCown 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:56 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> *From:* Cameron Crum 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be
>> telcos challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> *From:* Dennis Burgess 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the
>> API.   Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it
>> up ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 <314-735-0270%20x103> –
>> www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG]

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

So what happens now that broadband is 25/x and practically impossible to do
on US DSL networks?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be
> taken away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their
> actual
> broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf
> boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty
> to
> serve" as a common carrier.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Josh Reynolds
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
> coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
> larger WISPs being total bullshit.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> > If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> > telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> > whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> > future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> > that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> > truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to
> > change
> > to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than
> you
> > can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
> >
> > From: Cameron Crum
> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
> >
> > I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> > surgically accurate.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> >>
> >> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
> >> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be
> >> telcos
> >> challenging your coverage data.
> >>
> >> From: Dennis Burgess
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
> >>
> >>
> >> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
> >> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
> >> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the
> >> API.
> >> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up
> ..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
> >>
> >> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> +1000
> >> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
> >> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
> >> customers it has brought to us and
> >> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
> >> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
> >> locations.
> >> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
> >> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I
> >> could
> >> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>
> >> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com
> >>
> >> Josh Luthman
> >> Office: 937-552-2340
> >> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >> 1100 Wayne St
> >> Suite 1337
> >> Troy, OH

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?


Price Cap companies don't get the welfare checks the smaller rural ILECs do.
Larger companies are actually asking for permission from state regulators to 
not serve parts of their regulated turf.


-Original Message- 
From: Ken Hohhof

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I don't think that's true of broadband.  Frontier and AT DSL only goes to
where it goes.  If you are in their territory but beyond the DSL limit or on
a loaded pair, sorry Charlie, no broadband for you.  In fact, AT is widely
declining to provision DSL for new customers even at locations that
previously had DSL, first they were saying they were out of ports, but now
they just say if you don't already have it, you can't get it.  And I'm not
talking about areas that have UVerse.

It's actually so bad that Frontier tells some people they can't get POTS.
If you are at the end of the line and there was a cable cut or pedestal
knocked over, they tell you it isn't worth the expense to repair, even
though your house previously had POTS service.

Maybe it depends on how toothless the state utility regulator is, but that's
what we see in Illinois.


-Original Message- 
From: Chuck McCown

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to
serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
change

to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.

From: Cameron Crum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
surgically accurate.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
telcos

challenging your coverage data.

From: Dennis Burgess
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?


We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.



The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
API.

Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..



Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?



+1000
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
customers it has brought to us and
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
locations.
We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
could

only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)




On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:



Hmmm.news to me



Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone



- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM



Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

Josh

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Directly from the mouth of one of the key regulators standing 2 feet away and 
speaking directly to me, I heard they want the telcos to do 100% fiber and then 
it is game over.  They don’t want to consider any option other than fiber.  Of 
course you will never see that in a public statement, but that is how they 
feel.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Virtually all of northern Illinois is already marked as served.  But I think 
the ILECs did this to themselves by lying about their speeds and coverage, I 
think very little of that area became served due to WISPs.

They falsely claimed to have 4/1 DSL service already, so they don’t get a 
welfare check for those areas, but they don’t want to fix their sucky copper 
and DSL service without that welfare check.

So they need the benchmark for “served” raised to 10/1 or 25/3 so they can get 
subsidies to upgrade their own service, they probably also want approval for 
“IP transition” so they can put in fiber and abandon the copper and traditional 
POTS service.

It just amazes me they will pay Verizon $2000 per subscriber for a system they 
can then claim is worthless and unprofitable and get subsidies to replace it.  
Seems like you overpaid, or else future subsidies were part of the valuation.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken 
away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
> change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> From: Cameron Crum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
>> telcos
>> challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
>> API.
>> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> +1000
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
>> customers it

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I don’t see how they fund it all without expanding the USF contribution base to 
include broadband.  It seems like a question of when, not if.  Unless 
Republicans have enough power after the election to actually take a small 
government, free enterprise, anti crony capitalism stance and tell people to 
pay for their own broadband or move to the city.  Maybe if Trump wins, he’ll 
get Mexico to pay for it.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Directly from the mouth of one of the key regulators standing 2 feet away and 
speaking directly to me, I heard they want the telcos to do 100% fiber and then 
it is game over.  They don’t want to consider any option other than fiber.  Of 
course you will never see that in a public statement, but that is how they 
feel.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Virtually all of northern Illinois is already marked as served.  But I think 
the ILECs did this to themselves by lying about their speeds and coverage, I 
think very little of that area became served due to WISPs.

They falsely claimed to have 4/1 DSL service already, so they don’t get a 
welfare check for those areas, but they don’t want to fix their sucky copper 
and DSL service without that welfare check.

So they need the benchmark for “served” raised to 10/1 or 25/3 so they can get 
subsidies to upgrade their own service, they probably also want approval for 
“IP transition” so they can put in fiber and abandon the copper and traditional 
POTS service.

It just amazes me they will pay Verizon $2000 per subscriber for a system they 
can then claim is worthless and unprofitable and get subsidies to replace it.  
Seems like you overpaid, or else future subsidies were part of the valuation.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken 
away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
> change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> From: Cameron Crum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
>> telcos
>> challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
>> API.
>> Just a matter of the

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Don't think so...


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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Jay Weekley 
wrote:

> Can it migrate data from your existing Radio Mobile setup?  I assume it
> can.
>
> David wrote:
>
>> +1000
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
>> customers it has brought to us and
>> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
>> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
>> locations.
>> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
>>  U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I
>> could only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com <
>>> http://towercoverage.com>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm.news to me
>>>
>>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>>
>>> - Reply message -
>>> From: "Josh Luthman" >> >
>>> To: >
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com
>>> ?
>>> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM
>>>
>>> Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy" >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths,
>>> downtilt, gps coordinates, and everything.  That should
>>> really be the next step is pulling this info for
>>> integration.  I have had an active account for like a year
>>> and have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it
>>> all.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller
>>> >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from
>>> pokeycode, i mean powercode, and automatically populate
>>> all our towers in towercoverage... :)
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> *From:* Dennis Burgess 
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com 
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Thanks for all of the kind comments and suggestions.
>>>  The pricing is the same as since its inception, we
>>> have a dedicated staff to answer questions as well as
>>> take phone calls if you need assistance. Feel free to
>>> call or e-mail.
>>>
>>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>>
>>> den...@linktechs.net –
>>> 314-735-0270 x103  –
>>> www.linktechs.net 
>>>
>>> *From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> ] *On Behalf Of *That
>>> One Guy /sarcasm
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 3, 2016 5:31 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com
>>> ?
>>>
>>> wow, the pricing is a whole lot more realistic than
>>> it used to be, still expensive if you wanted to plot
>>> every antenna, but omni will get you the gist of it.
>>> hopefully their support is better than a repetitive
>>> canned response now
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Josh Luthman
>>> >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> $25/mo is not much.  I strongly recommend signing
>>> up for it simply for the EUS form.  If you get
>>> ONE customer out of the purchase, you made money.
>>> Any more than that is gravy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340 
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I don't think that's true of broadband.  Frontier and AT DSL only goes to 
where it goes.  If you are in their territory but beyond the DSL limit or on 
a loaded pair, sorry Charlie, no broadband for you.  In fact, AT is widely 
declining to provision DSL for new customers even at locations that 
previously had DSL, first they were saying they were out of ports, but now 
they just say if you don't already have it, you can't get it.  And I'm not 
talking about areas that have UVerse.


It's actually so bad that Frontier tells some people they can't get POTS. 
If you are at the end of the line and there was a cable cut or pedestal 
knocked over, they tell you it isn't worth the expense to repair, even 
though your house previously had POTS service.


Maybe it depends on how toothless the state utility regulator is, but that's 
what we see in Illinois.



-Original Message- 
From: Chuck McCown

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:08 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to
serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
change

to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.

From: Cameron Crum
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
surgically accurate.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
telcos

challenging your coverage data.

From: Dennis Burgess
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?


We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.



The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
API.

Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..



Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?



+1000
for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
customers it has brought to us and
the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
locations.
We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
could

only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)




On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
wrote:



Hmmm.news to me



Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone



- Reply message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: 
Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM



Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps
coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is 
pulling
this info for integration.  I have had

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I just don’t see how you do drive testing for fixed wireless, unless you’re 
talking about LTE based WLL service.

There is no way you drive around and determine from the road what I can do with 
a 25 dBi directional antenna on a 25 ft rooftop or 40 ft TV tower.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

There are already FCC cases on the books where both sides did drive testing and 
the WISP lost.  
Based on subscription level should be fine.  Some wisps just draw a 20 mile arc 
around each AP and call it good.  Those will be challenged.  

From: Ken Hohhof 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Not sure how they would do “drive testing”.  You actually have experienced this 
happening?  Or you mean challenges?  I thought they were using the lazy method 
like assuming if no one had ported out a POTS line to you, then you couldn’t 
possibly have service.

But what I do is populate my deployment data from my actual subscription at the 
block level.  So if someone challenges if I can serve that block, I have a 
pretty good rebuttal because I already have customers there.  Then I will only 
add blocks from RF propagation mapping after a manual check that yes, I could 
serve that block if someone called, and I have some idea why I don’t have any 
customers there yet.  That can also prod you to do some advertising in those 
areas where you have deployment but no subscription.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a telco 
from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the whole thing.  
It has already happened and will happen much more in the future as the FCC 
reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage that takes away their 
support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you truly serve or can serve in 
7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change to 25 down) can bring grief.  
There is no upside to claiming more than you can do on a 477 turf wise or speed 
wise but there is a big downside.  

From: Cameron Crum 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be 
surgically accurate. 

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477 
filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be telcos 
challenging your coverage data.  

  From: Dennis Burgess 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the 
broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.  

  The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.  
I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the API.   
Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..  

  Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.

  den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
  Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  +1000 
  for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a custom 
solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of customers it 
has brought to us and 
  the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service. Also, 
the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site locations. 
  We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data. 
  U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I could 
only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)

  On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com

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

On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller"  
wrote:

  Hmmm.news to me 

  Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

  - Reply message -
  From: "Josh Luthman" 
  To: 
  Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
  Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM

  Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.

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

  On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken 
away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
> change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> From: Cameron Crum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
>> telcos
>> challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
>> API.
>> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> +1000
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
>> customers it has brought to us and
>> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
>> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
>> locations.
>> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
>> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
>> could
>> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.news to me
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> - Reply message -
>> From: "Josh Luthman" 
>> To: 
>> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:
>>
>> This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps
>> coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is 
>> pulling
>> this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a year 
>> and
>> have never used it.  I

Re: [AFMUG] nifty windows tool

Damn that is cool!!!


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

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:21 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Just came across this
> in windows 7 at least search for "problem steps recorder"
> Its an automatic screen shot recorder for processes
>
> creates an mht file right there for quick and dirty things
> --
> 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] Who is using towercoverage.com?

FTTH.  Lots of nice RUS loans available at zero percent interest for the rural 
ILECS to upgrade.  

From: Josh Reynolds 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:25 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

So what happens now that broadband is 25/x and practically impossible to do on 
US DSL networks?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken 
away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.  

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
  broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
  boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
  serve" as a common carrier.

  -Original Message- 
  From: Josh Reynolds
  Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

  What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
  coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
  larger WISPs being total bullshit.

  Is that correct?


  On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
  > If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
  > telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
  > whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
  > future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
  > that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
  > truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
  > change
  > to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
  > can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
  >
  > From: Cameron Crum
  > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
  > To: af@afmug.com
  > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
  >
  > I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
  > surgically accurate.
  >
  > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
  >>
  >> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
  >> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
  >> telcos
  >> challenging your coverage data.
  >>
  >> From: Dennis Burgess
  >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
  >> To: af@afmug.com
  >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
  >>
  >>
  >> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
  >> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
  >> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
  >> API.
  >> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
  >>
  >> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
  >> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
  >> To: af@afmug.com
  >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> +1000
  >> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
  >> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
  >> customers it has brought to us and
  >> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
  >> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
  >> locations.
  >> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
  >> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
  >> could
  >> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
  >>
  >> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com
  >>
  >> Josh Luthman
  >> Office: 937-552-2340
  >> Direct: 937-552-2343
  >> 1100 Wayne St
  >> Suite 1337
  >> Troy, OH 45373
  >>
  >> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
  >> wrote:
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> Hmmm.news to me
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> - Reply message -
  >> From: "Josh Luthman"

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Virtually all of northern Illinois is already marked as served.  But I think 
the ILECs did this to themselves by lying about their speeds and coverage, I 
think very little of that area became served due to WISPs.

They falsely claimed to have 4/1 DSL service already, so they don’t get a 
welfare check for those areas, but they don’t want to fix their sucky copper 
and DSL service without that welfare check.

So they need the benchmark for “served” raised to 10/1 or 25/3 so they can get 
subsidies to upgrade their own service, they probably also want approval for 
“IP transition” so they can put in fiber and abandon the copper and traditional 
POTS service.

It just amazes me they will pay Verizon $2000 per subscriber for a system they 
can then claim is worthless and unprofitable and get subsidies to replace it.  
Seems like you overpaid, or else future subsidies were part of the valuation.

From: Chuck McCown 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 11:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be taken 
away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their actual 
broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf 
boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty to 
serve" as a common carrier.

-Original Message- 
From: Josh Reynolds
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
larger WISPs being total bullshit.

Is that correct?

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to 
> change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> From: Cameron Crum
> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be 
>> telcos
>> challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> From: Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the 
>> API.
>> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
>> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> +1000
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
>> customers it has brought to us and
>> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
>> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
>> locations.
>> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
>> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I 
>> could
>> only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> It says it when you

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

I predicted this a few years back.

"Let the copper rot, say you don't have enough money to upgrade and
maintain it, then hold out your hand for federal money to deploy new
fiber... all the meantime giving out bigger bonuses for C level."

Pretty predictable really.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> FTTH.  Lots of nice RUS loans available at zero percent interest for the
> rural ILECS to upgrade.
>
> *From:* Josh Reynolds 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:25 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> So what happens now that broadband is 25/x and practically impossible to
> do on US DSL networks?
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Yeahbut, the welfare check is tied to providing dial tone, but can be
>> taken away by an unsubsidized broadband competitor overlapping the turf.
>>
>> *From:* Mike Hammett 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:14 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>> A duty to serve...  phone...  not broadband.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Thursday, February 4, 2016 11:08:56 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>> ILECs have their maps defined by the state regulators, so while their
>> actual
>> broadband coverage in their turf may be lacking the fact they have turf
>> boundaries defined by the state, there is no argument.  They have a "duty
>> to
>> serve" as a common carrier.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Josh Reynolds
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 9:10 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>> What you basically just said is that WISPs can't lie about their
>> coverage areas despite 50% of the maps of the LECs, cablecos, and
>> larger WISPs being total bullshit.
>>
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>> > If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents
>> a
>> > telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
>> > whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
>> > future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage
>> percentage
>> > that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
>> > truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to
>> > change
>> > to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than
>> you
>> > can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>> >
>> > From: Cameron Crum
>> > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
>> > To: af@afmug.com
>> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>> >
>> > I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
>> > surgically accurate.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your
>> 477
>> >> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be
>> >> telcos
>> >> challenging your coverage data.
>> >>
>> >> From: Dennis Burgess
>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> >> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other
>> applications.
>> >> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though
>> the
>> >> API.
>> >> Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it up
>> ..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>> >>
>> >> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 <314-735-0270%20x103> –
>> www.linktechs.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David
>> >> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> >> To: af@afmug.com
>> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> +1000
>> >> for this solution..

Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?

2016-02-04 Thread Cameron Crum

But they don't allow smaller than block group. So if you can service half a
block group easily, but not the other, do you report or don't? What id you
have 3 customers in a block group which contains 50 people, but you can't
hit the other 47? Does 1 customer count? Who is to say what is really
serviceable? "Coverage" plots from any RF tool are for a specific RX
elevation. My guess is most people do them at about 20-25 feet as that is
about as high as most roofs go, but what if you only need 30ft to cover
most of the block group. That is easily accomplished in 7-10 days. 40 ft
might be too? It would be fine to be conservative, but within reason. There
is no little way to account for every address.



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> If you claim 100% coverage of a census block or tract and that prevents a
> telco from getting its welfare check, they will do drive testing of the
> whole thing.  It has already happened and will happen much more in the
> future as the FCC reduces the unsubsidized competitor coverage percentage
> that takes away their support.  Just sayin, claiming more turf than you
> truly serve or can serve in 7-10 days with 10 down and 1 up (soon to change
> to 25 down) can bring grief.  There is no upside to claiming more than you
> can do on a 477 turf wise or speed wise but there is a big downside.
>
> *From:* Cameron Crum 
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:10 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>
> I'm not sure even areas as small as census blocks groups allow you to be
> surgically accurate.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> I would say that y’all better be getting surgically accurate on your 477
>> filings.  You do sign them under penalty of perjury and there will be
>> telcos challenging your coverage data.
>>
>> *From:* Dennis Burgess 
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 04, 2016 7:07 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>> We also do the Form 477, i.e. broadband deployment data as well as the
>> broadband sub data if your billing system don’t do that anyways.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new APIs allow almost limitless integration with other applications.
>> I.e. you can do a path profile using our data in about 200ms though the
>> API.   Just a matter of the billing/powercode/visp/whatever programming it
>> up ..
>>
>>
>>
>> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
>>
>> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 <314-735-0270%20x103> –
>> www.linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *David
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 4, 2016 8:03 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Who is using towercoverage.com?
>>
>>
>>
>> +1000
>> for this solution.. Unless you invest the time and effort to build a
>> custom solution like towercoverage I dont complain about the number of
>> customers it has brought to us and
>> the countless times it has saved us on truck rolls for invalid service.
>> Also, the EUS data alone is very helpful when determining new site
>> locations.
>> We have 4 new sites going up this year because of that data.
>> U-Verse is our only real competitor in a couple of these areas. If I
>> could only sell TV i would have it in the bag :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/03/2016 11:26 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> It says it when you log in to towercoverage.com
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2016 12:19 AM, "CBB - Jay Fuller" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.news to me
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone
>>
>>
>>
>> - Reply message -
>> From: "Josh Luthman" 
>> To: 
>> Subject: [AFMUG] who is using towercoverage.com?
>> Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2016 10:22 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh you can dude.  Been a while since they enabled that.
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2016 11:07 PM, "Jeremy"  wrote:
>>
>> This.  So much this.  Powercode already has the azimuths, downtilt, gps
>> coordinates, and everything.  That should really be the next step is
>> pulling this info for integration.  I have had an active account for like a
>> year and have never used it.  I just don't have the time to add it all.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:29 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller <
>> par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> suggestion - take our antenna plots directly from pokeycode, i mean
>> powercode, and automatically populate all our towers in towercoverage... :)
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> *From:* Dennis Burgess 
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:51 PM
>>
>> *Subject:*

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

2016-02-04 Thread Stefan Englhardt

What's new in 6.33.5 (2015-Dec-28 09:13):

[...]
*) arp - show incomplete ARP entries;
[...]




-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Faisal Imtiaz
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. Februar 2016 16:32
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

Thanks, that would explain it.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Dennis Burgess" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:04:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

> All zeros means it sent a ARP broadcast out but has not received a ARP 
> response.
>
> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:37 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?
>
> What version of ROS ?
>
> I saw something similar on another router a couple of days back.
> It was someone else's router, not sure how they fixed it.
>
> MT forums suggest to upgrade to 6.34 for the fix..
>
> YMMV.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:31:49 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?
>
>> I've never seen this, but a router I am using is filling up it's ARP
>> table with Zeros on available IP's.
>>
>> As shown in the picture.
>>
>> This is a very simple routeros setup with one ether1 interface
>> bridged with a few EoIP tunnels
>>
>> Obviously somewhere in the network I'm doing something quite wrong
>> and it's causing this routers ARP table to register as all Zeros.
>>
>> These are active device IP's, so only the ones that SHOULD have MAC's
>> are showing, but their MACs are all Zeros.
>>
>> Just want to see if anyone has a general idea of what causes this on
> > RouterOS so I know where to start looking.

Re: [AFMUG] SonicWall or Fortinet for Business Firewall

We are a fortigate shop, as long as you abide by their sizing chart, its a
good solution, FAST RMA support, very little buggery in that. They do
production release on firmware a little faster than I like, but they are
prompt to address bugs and theyre open about it when vulnerabilities are
found.

Theyre GUI driven if thats your bag, but they change layout with every
firmware, the most recent seems to have made sense. If youre a CLI guy,
they can do alot, you just dont have alot of GUI visibility into much of
the CLI stuff thats not in the GUI.

The SSL portal VPN is slick, easy, end user friendly

You get 2 fortitokens and 10 managed forticlient licenses with office
models which is nice if you need two factor for a couple users and are
dealing with a shop that wont invest in real client AV

The forti AP integration is nice for managed local and remote wireless too,
pricing on them has gotten much better

Theyre not cheap, but if you break down all you get, there is a good value,
assuming you want the UTM, if not, may not be priced competitively. USE THE
SIZING CHARTS

The one thing I hate about them is power flops will corrupt the firmware
easily, the fix is simple, but requires console access and a current backup

They have a free 1gb forticloud account for logging and reporting as well
as fortiap management, theyre always changing whats in the "free account"
but if you purchase it you can do firmware configuration management,
advanced granular reporting (the reporting is awesome with Active directory
integrated UTM, customers love reports that tell them which staff are
practicing fuckery)

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Justin Wilson  wrote:

> Any type of firewall like this you need to be very mindful of the product
> lifecycle.  Most issues arise when folks don’t keep up on service contracts
> or are using EOL hardware.
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
>
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
>
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 9:15 AM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
> Fortinet. Sonicwall is quite a "joke" and has been that way for many moons.
> On Feb 4, 2016 8:08 AM, "Wireless Administrator"  wrote:
>
>> I have a business customer that will be replacing their existing Firewall
>> and is considering Fortinet rather than SonicWall.  Seems like UTM (Unified
>> Threat Management) is the buzz word that replaced Deep Packet Inspection
>> from days gone by.  Does anyone have an opinion on which company has the
>> better product.  A web search on this subject produces many links to pages
>> that share similar language, almost like one person did a review and others
>> are just repeating the original results.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve B.
>>
>
>


-- 
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] Check-in service for field technicians

2016-02-04 Thread Ben Royer

We also have a full time dispatcher, each technician texts in his arrival 
time and departure time.  We also use Fleetmatics, and so if a tech forgets 
to check in, we can go back and look at exactly what time their van arrived 
onsite or left the jobsite.


Thank you,
Ben Royer, Operations Manager
Royell Communications, Inc.
217-965-3699 www.royell.net

-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett

Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:42 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Check-in service for field technicians

That's basically what our local Time Warner franchise does.  It also
doubles as the timeclock.  Arrival time at the first job of the day
counts as their punch in time.


On 2/4/2016 9:38 AM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:

Our techs are instructed to contact the NOC before and after they
arrive onsite. The tech supplies the ETA to the NOC and the NOC
follows up at the given ETA.

Our NOC is staffed 24x7. YMMV.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Steve D  wrote:

Hey folks,

I want to evaluate some different options for field tech's to check-in 
with.
Right now, we rely on our support staff to not "forget" that a tech 
missed
his ETA to return home at night, but it does happen sometimes.  I'd like 
to
eliminate human error.  Ideally, something that they can phone into, 
email,

sms or website.  And obviously, if a check-in is missed, automated
notifications are sent to a list of contacts, escalating with time.

Anyone use anything like this and have recommendations?

-Steve D

Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

2016-02-04 Thread Faisal Imtiaz

Thanks, that would explain it.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Dennis Burgess" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:04:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?

> All zeros means it sent a ARP broadcast out but has not received a ARP 
> response.
> 
> Dennis Burgess, CTO, Link Technologies, Inc.
> den...@linktechs.net – 314-735-0270 x103 – www.linktechs.net
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:37 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?
> 
> What version of ROS ?
> 
> I saw something similar on another router a couple of days back.
> It was someone else's router, not sure how they fixed it.
> 
> MT forums suggest to upgrade to 6.34 for the fix..
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2016 9:31:49 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Mikrotik ARP Table Zeros?
> 
>> I've never seen this, but a router I am using is filling up it's ARP
>> table with Zeros on available IP's.
>> 
>> As shown in the picture.
>> 
>> This is a very simple routeros setup with one ether1 interface bridged
>> with a few EoIP tunnels
>> 
>> Obviously somewhere in the network I'm doing something quite wrong and
>> it's causing this routers ARP table to register as all Zeros.
>> 
>> These are active device IP's, so only the ones that SHOULD have MAC's
>> are showing, but their MACs are all Zeros.
>> 
>> Just want to see if anyone has a general idea of what causes this on
> > RouterOS so I know where to start looking.

Re: [AFMUG] SonicWall or Fortinet for Business Firewall