Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Mark Radabaugh]

Yes in regard to 10Mhz PAL’s.  I have not seen anything in the current 
mechanism being discussed that would allow you to specify two adjacent channels.

Mark


Please note the mailing and shipping address change below:

Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
22690 Pemberville Rd
Luckey, OH 43443
419-837-5015 x1021
m...@amplex.net

> On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:43 PM, Ken Hohhof  wrote:
> 
> OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very 
> specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.
>  
> So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request 
> and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess maybe, 
> although I would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the SAS 
> assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any 
> time.
>  
>  
> From: Mike Hammett 
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
>  
> Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a 
> WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
> channels.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:af...@kwisp.com>>
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
> 
> Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?
> 
> Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
> MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are 
> talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different.
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Adam Moffett
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
> 
> Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?
> 
> Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
> I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.
> 
> I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
> the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
> of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it
> shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much conversation about whether the
> connection you get is something supportable.  Wimax always had the
> problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a
> hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on
> site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that
> situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats.
> 
> In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a
> hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee for dual
> carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With MU-MIMO at
> some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 400meg (I
> believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what
> you can actually use.
> 
> They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch
> with someone who has it.
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the on topic content.
> >
> > Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> > explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> > distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should really 
> > be on a spec sheet.
> >
> > I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the real 
> > capabilities of these units.
> >

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Mark Radabaugh]

Initial trials for SAS/CBSD are being proposed this summer - I believe around 
KC.


Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Chairman
fcc-ch...@wispa.org





> On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for 
> awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U
> 
> On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  > wrote:
> OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very 
> specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.
>  
> So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request 
> and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess maybe, 
> although I would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the SAS 
> assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any 
> time.
>  
>  
> From: Mike Hammett 
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
>  
> Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a 
> WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
> channels.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>   
>  
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> From: "Ken Hohhof" mailto:af...@kwisp.com>>
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
> 
> Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?
> 
> Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
> MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are 
> talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different.
> 
> 
> -Original Message- 
> From: Adam Moffett
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
> 
> Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?
> 
> Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
> I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.
> 
> I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
> the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
> of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it
> shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much conversation about whether the
> connection you get is something supportable.  Wimax always had the
> problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a
> hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on
> site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that
> situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats.
> 
> In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a
> hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee for dual
> carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With MU-MIMO at
> some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 400meg (I
> believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what
> you can actually use.
> 
> They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch
> with someone who has it.
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for the on topic content.
> >
> > Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> > explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> > distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should really 
> > be on a spec sheet.
> >
> > I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the real 
> > capabilities of these units.
> >
> 
> 
>  

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Gino Villarini]

lte has carrier aggregation you know...

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:










Initial trials for SAS/CBSD are being proposed this summer - I believe around 
KC.


Mark RadabaughWISPA FCC chairmanfcc-ch...@wispa.org








On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:


The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for 
awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U
On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:






OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very 
specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.
 
So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request 
and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess maybe, 
although I would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the SAS 
assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any 
time.
 


 

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
 

Have 
we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a WAG 
based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels.




-
Mike 
Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP







From: 
"Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 
Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad 
specs

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?

Going 
forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, 
even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are 

talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's 
different.


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: 
Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 
Telrad specs

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?

Of the 4 Wimax 
systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
I'm assured that all of 
my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.

I'm not sure I trust the 
opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
the NLOS performance, and 
they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
of getting a connection working 
in a weird place that seems like it
shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much 
conversation about whether the
connection you get is something 
supportable.  Wimax always had the
problem that if the customer tells 
you something is wrong you have a
hard time proving whether there is or isn't 
a problem without going on
site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact 
really changes that
situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no 
damn ethernet stats.

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and 
get close to a
hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee 
for dual
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With 
MU-MIMO at
some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 
400meg (I
believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide 
that by what
you can actually use.

They do have a capacity planning 
spreadsheet if you can get in touch
with someone who has 
it.



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
wrote:
>
> Sorry for the on topic content.
>
> Would 
those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> 
explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> 
distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should really 

> be on a spec sheet.
>
> I'm still trying to dig through the 
marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these 
units.
>



 

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Mike Hammett]

I wonder how it affects cost having one, two or three 20 MHz channels vs. twice 
as many 10 MHz channels. Sprint is deploying gear with 2x 20 MHz aggregation 
and will be doing 3x 20 MHz "soon". 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Gino Villarini"  
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:52:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 


lte has carrier aggregation you know... 


Sent from Outlook Mobile 




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > 
wrote: 




Initial trials for SAS/CBSD are being proposed this summer - I believe around 
KC. 






Mark Radabaugh 
WISPA FCC Chairman 
fcc-ch...@wispa.org 










On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 


The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for 
awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U 
On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 






OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very specific 
that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses. 

So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request and 
receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS? I guess maybe, although I 
would be very surprised. And if you got lucky and the SAS assigned you 2 x 10 
MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any time. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 


Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a 
WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz? 

Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic. If you are 
talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different. 


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax? 

Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst. 
I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE. 

I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE. People are very focused on 
the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor 
of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it 
shouldn't work. I haven't seen much conversation about whether the 
connection you get is something supportable. Wimax always had the 
problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a 
hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on 
site. I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that 
situation. I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats. 

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a 
hundred meg aggregate on that. You can pay a license fee for dual 
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that. With MU-MIMO at 
some future date they expect to double that. So best case is 400meg (I 
believe). Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what 
you can actually use. 

They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch 
with someone who has it. 



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: 
> 
> Sorry for the on topic content. 
> 
> Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> distance capability (ie link budget), and the like? Ie what should really 
> be on a spec sheet. 
> 
> I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these units. 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Gino Villarini]

is just license cost on the bts

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:58 AM -0700, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:










I wonder how it affects cost having one, two or three 20 MHz channels vs. twice 
as many 10 MHz channels. Sprint is deploying gear with 2x 20 MHz aggregation 
and will be doing 3x 20 MHz "soon".



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP




From: "Gino Villarini" 
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:52:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

lte has carrier aggregation you know...

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:










Initial trials for SAS/CBSD are being proposed this summer - I believe around 
KC.


Mark RadabaughWISPA FCC chairmanfcc-ch...@wispa.org








On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:


The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for 
awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U
On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:






OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very 
specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.
 
So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request 
and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess maybe, 
although I would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the SAS 
assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any 
time.
 


 

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
 

Have 
we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a WAG 
based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels.




-
Mike 
Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP







From: 
"Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 
Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad 
specs

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?

Going 
forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, 
even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are 

talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's 
different.


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: 
Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 
Telrad specs

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?

Of the 4 Wimax 
systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
I'm assured that all of 
my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.

I'm not sure I trust the 
opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
the NLOS performance, and 
they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
of getting a connection working 
in a weird place that seems like it
shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much 
conversation about whether the
connection you get is something 
supportable.  Wimax always had the
problem that if the customer tells 
you something is wrong you have a
hard time proving whether there is or isn't 
a problem without going on
site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact 
really changes that
situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no 
damn ethernet stats.

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and 
get close to a
hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee 
for dual
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With 
MU-MIMO at
some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 
400meg (I
believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide 
that by what
you can actually use.

They do have a capacity planning 
spreadsheet if you can get in touch
with someone who has 
it.



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
wrote:
>
> Sorry for the on topic content.
>
> Would 
those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> 
explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> 
distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should really 

> be on a spec sheet.
>
> I'm still trying to dig through the 
marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these 
units.
>



 

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Mike Hammett]

Right, but does a BTS that does it cost significantly different than one that 
doesn't? It offers 2x the capacity. Is it 2x the price? 1.2x? 4x? 

Same on the UE side. 

I know that they're all migrating that way for cellular use, but we often get 
things a bit different (and likely rightfully so), so it may or may not exactly 
translate. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Gino Villarini"  
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 9:06:38 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 


is just license cost on the bts 


Sent from Outlook Mobile 




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:58 AM -0700, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > 
wrote: 





I wonder how it affects cost having one, two or three 20 MHz channels vs. twice 
as many 10 MHz channels. Sprint is deploying gear with 2x 20 MHz aggregation 
and will be doing 3x 20 MHz "soon". 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Gino Villarini"  
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:52:47 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 


lte has carrier aggregation you know... 


Sent from Outlook Mobile 




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > 
wrote: 




Initial trials for SAS/CBSD are being proposed this summer - I believe around 
KC. 






Mark Radabaugh 
WISPA FCC Chairman 
fcc-ch...@wispa.org 










On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Josh Reynolds < j...@kyneticwifi.com > wrote: 


The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for 
awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U 
On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > wrote: 






OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very specific 
that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses. 

So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request and 
receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS? I guess maybe, although I 
would be very surprised. And if you got lucky and the SAS assigned you 2 x 10 
MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any time. 





From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 


Have we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a 
WAG based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Ken Hohhof" < af...@kwisp.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz? 

Going forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic. If you are 
talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's different. 


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs 

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax? 

Of the 4 Wimax systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst. 
I'm assured that all of my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE. 

I'm not sure I trust the opinions on LTE. People are very focused on 
the NLOS performance, and they are still experiencing the "wow" factor 
of getting a connection working in a weird place that seems like it 
shouldn't work. I haven't seen much conversation about whether the 
connection you get is something supportable. Wimax always had the 
problem that if the customer tells you something is wrong you have a 
hard time proving whether there is or isn't a problem without going on 
site. I don't know if LTE on the compact really changes that 
situation. I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no damn ethernet stats. 

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and get close to a 
hundred meg aggregate on that. You can pay a license fee for dual 
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that. With MU-MIMO at 
some future date they expect to double that. So best case is 400meg (I 
believe). Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide that by what 
you can actually use. 

They do have a capacity planning spreadsheet if you can get in touch 
with someone who has it. 



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: 
> 
> Sorry for the on topic content. 
> 
> Would those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> distance capability (ie link budget), and the like? Ie what should really 
> be on a spec sheet. 
> 
> I'm still trying to dig through the marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these units. 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Gino Villarini]

all your licensed links should be engineered for -50 or lower 

Sent from Outlook Mobile

_
From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2
To:  




Well yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say. Just think of the 4096 as a 
bonus, it's nice when it's in that nodulation, but realistically any FDD 
throughout claims in Mbps from a marketing department are closer to fluff than 
operational reality.On Apr 15, 2016 2:15 PM, "Mike Hammett"  
wrote:
I can take a 4096 radio, add engineering and come up with a 1024 performing 
radio (or a 4096 performing radio). I can't turn a 1024 radio into a 4096 
radio. Radio, antenna and band selection as appropriate for the uptime at 
performance levels required.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP




From: "Eric Kuhnke" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2



Keeping in mind 4096qam requires a really high RSL like -50, so it's better to 
think of it as a 1024qam radio. 

Don't engineer link capacity needs based on 80MHz wide 4096... It'll be in 4096 
maybe 99.5% of the year. Done right it can be in 1024 at five nines.On Apr 15, 
2016 11:39 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
Well, what do they get at a 112 MHz channel instead of an 80 MHz channel? 
Europe has 112 MHz channels available now. Before, SIAE had some very good spec 
sheets, so ask for them.

I also think they can do 4096QAM? 4096 QAM and 112 MHz channels might get you 
there.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP




From: "Peter Kranz" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:47:09 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2



Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise “ALFOplus2 full 
outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling successful launch 
of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and availability of the 
network.”

 

And

 

“first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single ODU”

 

I can’t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps..

 

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book

2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps 

 

So are they really using 4 channels?

 

Channel 1 HxV for 1245

Channel 2 HxV for 1245

 

Total = 2490 Mbps..

 

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

 




  

Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

[Gino Villarini]

at least on the bts we have evaluated, its just license

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 7:09 AM -0700, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:










Right, but does a BTS that does it cost significantly different than one that 
doesn't? It offers 2x the capacity. Is it 2x the price? 1.2x? 4x?

Same on the UE side.

I know that they're all migrating that way for cellular use, but we often get 
things a bit different (and likely rightfully so), so it may or may not exactly 
translate.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP




From: "Gino Villarini" 
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 9:06:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

is just license cost on the bts

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 6:58 AM -0700, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:










I wonder how it affects cost having one, two or three 20 MHz channels vs. twice 
as many 10 MHz channels. Sprint is deploying gear with 2x 20 MHz aggregation 
and will be doing 3x 20 MHz "soon".



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP




From: "Gino Villarini" 
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:52:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs

lte has carrier aggregation you know...

Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:17 AM -0700, "Mark Radabaugh"  wrote:










Initial trials for SAS/CBSD are being proposed this summer - I believe around 
KC.


Mark RadabaughWISPA FCC chairmanfcc-ch...@wispa.org








On Apr 15, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Josh Reynolds  wrote:


The SAS doesn't even exist yet, right? Seems like the FCC got paralyzed for 
awhile by Carrier desire to use 3.65 for LTE-U
On Apr 15, 2016 8:43 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:






OK, fair warning, I am going by memory, but I thought the FCC was very 
specific that PALs would be 10 MHz licenses.
 
So if you had 2 PALs in the same area, or were using GAA, could you request 
and receive a 20 MHz contiguous allocation from the SAS?  I guess maybe, 
although I would be very surprised.  And if you got lucky and the SAS 
assigned you 2 x 10 MHz adjacent channels, I think that could change at any 
time.
 


 

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 8:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad specs
 

Have 
we actually heard anything official on 10 MHz vs. more or is that just a WAG 
based on 10 MHz licenses? I would assume the SAS would support larger 
channels.




-
Mike 
Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP







From: 
"Ken Hohhof" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 
Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Telrad 
specs

Are you talking licensed spectrum, or 3.65 GHz?

Going 
forward, I don't think we should plan on 20 MHz channels in 3550-3700 
MHz, 
even now under Part 90 rules it is somewhat unrealistic.  If you are 

talking about aggregating non contiguous 10 MHz channels, that's 
different.


-Original Message- 
From: Adam Moffett
Sent: 
Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 
Telrad specs

Are we talking about LTE or Wimax?

Of the 4 Wimax 
systems I've used, the Compact is probably the worst.
I'm assured that all of 
my problems are fixed when we upgrade to LTE.

I'm not sure I trust the 
opinions on LTE.  People are very focused on
the NLOS performance, and 
they are still experiencing the "wow" factor
of getting a connection working 
in a weird place that seems like it
shouldn't work.  I haven't seen much 
conversation about whether the
connection you get is something 
supportable.  Wimax always had the
problem that if the customer tells 
you something is wrong you have a
hard time proving whether there is or isn't 
a problem without going on
site.  I don't know if LTE on the compact 
really changes that
situation.  I do know the Gemtek CPE still has no 
damn ethernet stats.

In LTE the AP can use a 20mhz channel at 64QAM and 
get close to a
hundred meg aggregate on that.  You can pay a license fee 
for dual
carrier mode and use 2 x 20mhz channels to double that.  With 
MU-MIMO at
some future date they expect to double that.  So best case is 
400meg (I
believe).  Since using 40mhz might not be practical, divide 
that by what
you can actually use.

They do have a capacity planning 
spreadsheet if you can get in touch
with someone who has 
it.



On 4/13/2016 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
wrote:
>
> Sorry for the on topic content.
>
> Would 
those of you here who have played enough with the telrad gear please 
> 
explain to me the realities of things like capacity per ap/channel/mhz, 
> 
distance capability (ie link budget), and the like?  Ie what should really 

> be on a spec sheet.
>
> I'm still trying to dig through the 
marketing spin to understand the real 
> capabilities of these 
units.
>



 

Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2

[Mike Hammett]

Most I have done have been in the -30s or -40s. Need good system margin to keep 
99.999% at something near full modulation. Otherwise, you're paying for 
something you're not using. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Gino Villarini"  
To: af@afmug.com, af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 9:09:12 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 



all your licensed links should be engineered for -50 or lower 


Sent from Outlook Mobile 

_ 
From: Eric Kuhnke < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 5:23 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 
To: < af@afmug.com > 



Well yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say. Just think of the 4096 as a 
bonus, it's nice when it's in that nodulation, but realistically any FDD 
throughout claims in Mbps from a marketing department are closer to fluff than 
operational reality. 
On Apr 15, 2016 2:15 PM, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




I can take a 4096 radio, add engineering and come up with a 1024 performing 
radio (or a 4096 performing radio). I can't turn a 1024 radio into a 4096 
radio. Radio, antenna and band selection as appropriate for the uptime at 
performance levels required. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Eric Kuhnke" < eric.kuh...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 4:12:31 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 



Keeping in mind 4096qam requires a really high RSL like -50, so it's better to 
think of it as a 1024qam radio. 
Don't engineer link capacity needs based on 80MHz wide 4096... It'll be in 4096 
maybe 99.5% of the year. Done right it can be in 1024 at five nines. 
On Apr 15, 2016 11:39 AM, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




Well, what do they get at a 112 MHz channel instead of an 80 MHz channel? 
Europe has 112 MHz channels available now. Before, SIAE had some very good spec 
sheets, so ask for them. 

I also think they can do 4096QAM? 4096 QAM and 112 MHz channels might get you 
there. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Peter Kranz" < pkr...@unwiredltd.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2016 12:47:09 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] AlfoPlus2 



Has anyone worked with the SIAE AlfoPlus2 yet? They promise “ ALFOplus2 full 
outdoor solution offers 2Gbps guaranteed throughput, enabling successful launch 
of LTE, by providing best TCO while boosting capacity and availability of the 
network.” 

And 

“first full outdoor supporting up to two channels at 80/112MHz in single ODU” 

I can’t quite figure out how they are getting 2 Gbps.. 

1x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 623 Mbps in my book 
2x80Mhz Channel at 2048QAM = 1245 Mbps 

So are they really using 4 channels? 

Channel 1 HxV for 1245 
Channel 2 HxV for 1245 

Total = 2490 Mbps.. 

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

Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

[Daniel White]

One of the absolute best sites (something like 500 subs) that the WISP I worked 
for had was a HAM radio operators property.



But just like anything, it all depends on the personality of the person and 
what frequencies they are using.



I’d certainly look into it.



Daniel White

Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales

ConVergence Technologies

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590

dwh...@converge-tech.com 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM



We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even with 
900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three out of 
maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business there that 
would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to invest in 
anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the guys that we 
were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he pounds it 
constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap



We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of troublesome 
to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he found out the 320 
power supply on his service emits a particular frequency that interfered with 
one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with chokes on all the cables, 
he did it and it worked)



His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the three 
existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something short like 
40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher capacity rates 
(and get the guy off the 900 AP)



the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf mess we 
will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful of customers.





anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies by 
individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having priority 
on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via contract and 
it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location where you go to 
court)




--

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.



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

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Jeremy]

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a grey
area when it comes to legality.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
> processors allowing kiting
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc (ICI)
>  wrote:
>
>> My 2 cents:
>>
>> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some kind
>> of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as an
>> outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>>
>> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>>
>> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
>> business.  They make money.
>>
>> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>>
>> *Tyson Burris, President*
>>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>>
>> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
>> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
>> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>>
>>
>>
>> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
>> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
>> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
>> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
>> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
>> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org  to
>> current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes
>> sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
>> get the cash back rewards
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
>> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
>> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
>> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
>> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
>> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
>> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
>> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
>> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
>> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
>> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
>> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. We process a card for $20k
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
>> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
>> because of this)
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
>> funds.
>>
>>
>>
>> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
>> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
>> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
>> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
>> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
>> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
>> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
>> relationship.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>>
>>
>>
>> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
>> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
>> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
>> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>>
>>
>>
>> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
>> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
>> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
>> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
>> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her
>> asking for “invoices and documentation” to support the charge; the US in
>> particular is getting so used to sacrificing our privacy and freedoms.
>> Tayna is demanding I send over information that completely out of her
>> sphere of concern.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tayna is citing th

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Jeremy]

When we started with IPPay, we were told that we could not take payments
for one year of service in advance.  They said something along the lines of
"we have such great rates because this industry has less chargebacks being
a service provider that deals with month-to-month service at a customer's
residence or business".  They said that I needed to make sure it didn't say
anything about pre-payments for a year of service on my website.
Apparently large transactions are more likely to get a chargeback after a
year of service.  I don't know how much I buy that logic, but they are
definitely geared toward small monthly transactions.  I could see that
large charge raising some red flags.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Jeremy  wrote:

> Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a grey
> area when it comes to legality.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
>> processors allowing kiting
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>> (ICI)  wrote:
>>
>>> My 2 cents:
>>>
>>> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some
>>> kind of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as
>>> an outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>>>
>>> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>>>
>>> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
>>> business.  They make money.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>>>
>>> *Tyson Burris, President*
>>>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>>>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>>>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>>>
>>> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
>>> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
>>> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
>>> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
>>> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
>>> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
>>> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
>>> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org  to
>>> current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes
>>> sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment
>>> and get the cash back rewards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank
>>> “courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash
>>> advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the
>>> checks are exempt from cash back rewards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>>> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
>>> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
>>> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
>>> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
>>> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
>>> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
>>> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
>>> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
>>> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. We process a card for $20k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
>>> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
>>> because of this)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release
>>> the funds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
>>> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
>>> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
>>> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
>>> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
>>> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
>>> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
>>> relationship.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
>>> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
>>> paym

Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

[Chuck McCown]

If  you give him free service, it will go a long way toward ensuring 
cooperation.  

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even with 
900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three out of 
maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business there that 
would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to invest in 
anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the guys that we 
were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he pounds it 
constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap 

We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of troublesome 
to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he found out the 320 
power supply on his service emits a particular frequency that interfered with 
one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with chokes on all the cables, 
he did it and it worked)

His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the three 
existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something short like 
40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher capacity rates 
(and get the guy off the 900 AP)

the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf mess we 
will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful of customers.


anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies by 
individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having priority 
on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via contract and 
it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location where you go to 
court)


-- 

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] Micropop at a HAM

[Jeremy]

We are in the process of building a major pop on a site with two HAM
organizations together on it.  Everything they have is low frequencies
(like 420MHz or something).  I don't anticipate any problems.  They wanted
to share a rack, but I 86'ed that idea.  My wiring is too meticulous to
share a rack with anyone.  I told them I'd rather be in a box on a pole
outside than share a rack in the building.  I ended up mounting a box with
a lock inside the building.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Daniel White  wrote:

> One of the absolute best sites (something like 500 subs) that the WISP I
> worked for had was a HAM radio operators property.
>
>
>
> But just like anything, it all depends on the personality of the person
> and what frequencies they are using.
>
>
>
> I’d certainly look into it.
>
>
>
> Daniel White
>
> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>
> ConVergence Technologies
>
> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>
> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
> /sarcasm
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM
>
>
>
> We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even
> with 900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three
> out of maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business
> there that would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to
> invest in anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the
> guys that we were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he
> pounds it constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap
>
>
>
> We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of
> troublesome to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he
> found out the 320 power supply on his service emits a particular frequency
> that interfered with one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with
> chokes on all the cables, he did it and it worked)
>
>
>
> His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the
> three existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something
> short like 40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher
> capacity rates (and get the guy off the 900 AP)
>
>
>
> the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf mess
> we will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful of
> customers.
>
>
>
>
>
> anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies by
> individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having
> priority on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via
> contract and it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location
> where you go to court)
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

[Chuck McCown]

Funny, as a former ham, 402 MHz is Ultra High Frequencies...

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:37 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

We are in the process of building a major pop on a site with two HAM 
organizations together on it.  Everything they have is low frequencies (like 
420MHz or something).  I don't anticipate any problems.  They wanted to share a 
rack, but I 86'ed that idea.  My wiring is too meticulous to share a rack with 
anyone.  I told them I'd rather be in a box on a pole outside than share a rack 
in the building.  I ended up mounting a box with a lock inside the building.

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Daniel White  wrote:

  One of the absolute best sites (something like 500 subs) that the WISP I 
worked for had was a HAM radio operators property.



  But just like anything, it all depends on the personality of the person and 
what frequencies they are using.



  I’d certainly look into it.



  Daniel White

  Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales

  ConVergence Technologies

  Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590

  dwh...@converge-tech.com



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
  Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM



  We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even with 
900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three out of 
maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business there that 
would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to invest in 
anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the guys that we 
were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he pounds it 
constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap



  We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of 
troublesome to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he found 
out the 320 power supply on his service emits a particular frequency that 
interfered with one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with chokes on 
all the cables, he did it and it worked)



  His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the 
three existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something short 
like 40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher capacity 
rates (and get the guy off the 900 AP)



  the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf mess we 
will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful of customers.





  anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies by 
individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having priority 
on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via contract and 
it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location where you go to 
court)




  -- 

  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.


   Virus-free. www.avast.com  

Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

[Jeremy]

Yeah, I am clueless about HAM radio.  We provide an Ethernet connection to
them for their VoIP gateway in trade for power.  We are also letting them
put an omni on top of our tower.  I really only want to pass the HAM test
so that I can get license plates with a picture of a tower on them

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Funny, as a former ham, 402 MHz is Ultra High Frequencies...
>
> *From:* Jeremy 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:37 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM
>
> We are in the process of building a major pop on a site with two HAM
> organizations together on it.  Everything they have is low frequencies
> (like 420MHz or something).  I don't anticipate any problems.  They wanted
> to share a rack, but I 86'ed that idea.  My wiring is too meticulous to
> share a rack with anyone.  I told them I'd rather be in a box on a pole
> outside than share a rack in the building.  I ended up mounting a box with
> a lock inside the building.
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Daniel White  wrote:
>
>> One of the absolute best sites (something like 500 subs) that the WISP I
>> worked for had was a HAM radio operators property.
>>
>>
>>
>> But just like anything, it all depends on the personality of the person
>> and what frequencies they are using.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d certainly look into it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel White
>>
>> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>>
>> ConVergence Technologies
>>
>> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>>
>> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
>> /sarcasm
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM
>>
>>
>>
>> We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even
>> with 900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three
>> out of maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business
>> there that would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to
>> invest in anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the
>> guys that we were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he
>> pounds it constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap
>>
>>
>>
>> We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of
>> troublesome to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he
>> found out the 320 power supply on his service emits a particular frequency
>> that interfered with one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with
>> chokes on all the cables, he did it and it worked)
>>
>>
>>
>> His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the
>> three existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something
>> short like 40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher
>> capacity rates (and get the guy off the 900 AP)
>>
>>
>>
>> the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf mess
>> we will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful of
>> customers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies
>> by individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having
>> priority on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via
>> contract and it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location
>> where you go to court)
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

[Chuck McCown]

Here is a good place to start:
https://hamstudy.org/tech2014

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:50 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

Yeah, I am clueless about HAM radio.  We provide an Ethernet connection to them 
for their VoIP gateway in trade for power.  We are also letting them put an 
omni on top of our tower.  I really only want to pass the HAM test so that I 
can get license plates with a picture of a tower on them

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Funny, as a former ham, 402 MHz is Ultra High Frequencies...

  From: Jeremy 
  Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:37 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

  We are in the process of building a major pop on a site with two HAM 
organizations together on it.  Everything they have is low frequencies (like 
420MHz or something).  I don't anticipate any problems.  They wanted to share a 
rack, but I 86'ed that idea.  My wiring is too meticulous to share a rack with 
anyone.  I told them I'd rather be in a box on a pole outside than share a rack 
in the building.  I ended up mounting a box with a lock inside the building.

  On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Daniel White  wrote:

One of the absolute best sites (something like 500 subs) that the WISP I 
worked for had was a HAM radio operators property.



But just like anything, it all depends on the personality of the person and 
what frequencies they are using.



I’d certainly look into it.



Daniel White

Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales

ConVergence Technologies

Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590

dwh...@converge-tech.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM



We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even 
with 900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three out 
of maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business there that 
would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to invest in 
anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the guys that we 
were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he pounds it 
constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap



We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of 
troublesome to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he found 
out the 320 power supply on his service emits a particular frequency that 
interfered with one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with chokes on 
all the cables, he did it and it worked)



His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the 
three existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something short 
like 40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher capacity 
rates (and get the guy off the 900 AP)



the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf mess 
we will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful of 
customers.





anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies by 
individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having priority 
on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via contract and 
it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location where you go to 
court)




-- 

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.


 Virus-free. www.avast.com  

Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM

[Jeremy]

Awesome!

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Here is a good place to start:
> https://hamstudy.org/tech2014
>
> *From:* Jeremy 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:50 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM
>
> Yeah, I am clueless about HAM radio.  We provide an Ethernet connection to
> them for their VoIP gateway in trade for power.  We are also letting them
> put an omni on top of our tower.  I really only want to pass the HAM test
> so that I can get license plates with a picture of a tower on them
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Funny, as a former ham, 402 MHz is Ultra High Frequencies...
>>
>> *From:* Jeremy 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:37 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM
>>
>> We are in the process of building a major pop on a site with two HAM
>> organizations together on it.  Everything they have is low frequencies
>> (like 420MHz or something).  I don't anticipate any problems.  They wanted
>> to share a rack, but I 86'ed that idea.  My wiring is too meticulous to
>> share a rack with anyone.  I told them I'd rather be in a box on a pole
>> outside than share a rack in the building.  I ended up mounting a box with
>> a lock inside the building.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Daniel White  wrote:
>>
>>> One of the absolute best sites (something like 500 subs) that the WISP I
>>> worked for had was a HAM radio operators property.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But just like anything, it all depends on the personality of the person
>>> and what frequencies they are using.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d certainly look into it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Daniel White
>>>
>>> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>>>
>>> ConVergence Technologies
>>>
>>> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>>>
>>> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
>>> /sarcasm
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:52 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Micropop at a HAM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have this little cluster we have not been able to penetrate well even
>>> with 900mhz, its got maybe 12-15 houses, weve only been able to get three
>>> out of maybe 7 we have been called to service. There is also a business
>>> there that would get our top non DIA rate, but nobody there would want to
>>> invest in anything like a tall enough tower to clear the trees. One of the
>>> guys that we were able to get to was only viable with 900 mhz fsk, and he
>>> pounds it constantly, primarily upload, so hes low priority on that ap
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We do have one long time customer, but hes a HAM, hes been kind of
>>> troublesome to the rest of the staff, but always really good with me. (he
>>> found out the 320 power supply on his service emits a particular frequency
>>> that interfered with one of his projects, I said maybe a farady cage with
>>> chokes on all the cables, he did it and it worked)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> His property is LOS to our pop and positioned where we could pick up the
>>> three existing and two of the NLOS people without a tower, with something
>>> short like 40 foot we could pick up the rest and get them all on higher
>>> capacity rates (and get the guy off the 900 AP)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> the concern is whether a hammie is likely to get uppity about the rf
>>> mess we will make, thats a headache that wouldnt be worth it for a handful
>>> of customers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> anybody ever done a micropop on these guys properties, I know it varies
>>> by individual, but is it worth it dealing with them? And with HAMs having
>>> priority on some of our spectrum, can we prioritize our service needs via
>>> contract and it be enforceable (not that its worth staying on a location
>>> where you go to court)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>  Virus-free.
>>> www.avast.com
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Josh Luthman]

To each their own!

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Apr 16, 2016 10:27 AM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

> Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a grey
> area when it comes to legality.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
>> processors allowing kiting
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>> (ICI)  wrote:
>>
>>> My 2 cents:
>>>
>>> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some
>>> kind of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as
>>> an outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>>>
>>> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>>>
>>> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
>>> business.  They make money.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>>>
>>> *Tyson Burris, President*
>>>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>>>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>>>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>>>
>>> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
>>> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
>>> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
>>> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
>>> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
>>> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
>>> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
>>> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org  to
>>> current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes
>>> sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment
>>> and get the cash back rewards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank
>>> “courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash
>>> advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the
>>> checks are exempt from cash back rewards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>>> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
>>> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
>>> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
>>> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
>>> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
>>> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
>>> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
>>> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
>>> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. We process a card for $20k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
>>> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
>>> because of this)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release
>>> the funds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
>>> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
>>> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
>>> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
>>> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
>>> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
>>> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
>>> relationship.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
>>> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
>>> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
>>> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
>>> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
>>> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
>>> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
>>> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particular

[AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We  
recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a  
little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking  
into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns  
me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when  
dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.   
There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,  
the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency  
coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different  
sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked  
with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a  
problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this  
post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links  
are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39  
on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.   
There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is  
no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside  
from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on  
one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.


In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one  
side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the  
other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.


So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use  
radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?


Craig

Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers

[Daniel Gerlach]

Intracom Ultraflex 80 ghz

2016-04-16 3:36 GMT+02:00 Mike Hammett :

> Yup. Some were added to a rooftop I'm on somewhat recently.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Eric Kuhnke" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, April 15, 2016 4:32:18 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers
>
> Lightpointe is still alive and shipping product?
> On Apr 15, 2016 10:34 AM, "Daniel White"  wrote:
>
> Aviat
>>
>> Huawei
>>
>> Lightpointe
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel White
>>
>> Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
>>
>> ConVergence Technologies
>>
>> Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
>>
>> dwh...@converge-tech.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:27 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 80 GHz manufacturers
>>
>>
>>
>> And Alcoma, which is, I think, Czech...
>>
>> http://www.alcoma.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>>
>> oh and I forgot Elva-1, the russians with the 1 and 10GbE FDD radio.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Josh Reynolds 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dragonwave (Harmony E-Band)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Eric Kuhnke 
>> wrote:
>> > Bridgewave
>> >
>> > E-band
>> >
>> > Siklu
>> >
>> > SIAE
>> >
>> > NEC (rumors are that internally it is a Bridgewave/REMEC radio)
>> >
>> > Intracom Telecom
>> >
>> > Fujitsu (again rumors that this is OEMed from somewhere else)
>> >
>> > Gigabeam (defunct)
>> >
>> > Ericsson
>> >
>> > Fastback Networks
>> >
>> > Ceragon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > am I missing anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>  Virus-free.
>> www.avast.com
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However I 
would make a general statement ..

There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there may be 
some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry tend to take 
it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of correctness. 
Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or the worst of 
such examples.

>From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the link 
>working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.

BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at what 
Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge the 
accepted status quo  in licensed links..

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: "Craig Baird" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
> little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
> into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
> me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
> dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
> There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
> the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
> coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
> sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
> with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
> problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
> post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
> are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
> on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
> There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
> no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
> from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
> one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
> 
> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
> other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
> 
> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
> radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
> 
> Craig

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

Thanks Faisal.  I hope that's the case.  If it were just some random  
person who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it.  But the  
post was made by one of the Cambium guys themselves.


Craig


Quoting Faisal Imtiaz :

I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..  
However I would make a general statement ..


There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link,  
there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in  
the industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up  
examining it for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the  
public forums can be the best or the worst of such examples.


From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have  
the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.


BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look  
at what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did  
challenge the accepted status quo  in licensed links..


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: "Craig Baird" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration



So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.

In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.

So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Faisal Imtiaz]

That comment may have been made in the context of a particular model(specific 
product code) of radio... but sounds like your link radios were done with a 
specific BOM..

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: "Craig Baird" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 12:04:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

> Thanks Faisal.  I hope that's the case.  If it were just some random
> person who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it.  But the
> post was made by one of the Cambium guys themselves.
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> Quoting Faisal Imtiaz :
> 
>> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..
>> However I would make a general statement ..
>>
>> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link,
>> there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in
>> the industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up
>> examining it for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the
>> public forums can be the best or the worst of such examples.
>>
>> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have
>> the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
>>
>> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look
>> at what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did
>> challenge the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
>>
>> 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: "Craig Baird" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>>
>>> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
>>> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
>>> little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
>>> into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
>>> me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
>>> dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
>>> There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
>>> the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
>>> coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
>>> sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
>>> with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
>>> problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
>>> post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
>>> are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
>>> on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
>>> There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
>>> no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
>>> from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
>>> one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
>>>
>>> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
>>> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
>>> other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
>>>
>>> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
>>> radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
>>>
>>> Craig
>>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Daniel White]

Craig my guess would be they meant frequency band, not subband.

I can't think of any reason you couldn't use different sub-bands so long as the 
OMT covers the range (which in the case of 11GHz is most likely covers all 
subbands).

Daniel White
Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
ConVergence Technologies
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
dwh...@converge-tech.com


> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 10:04 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>
> Thanks Faisal.  I hope that's the case.  If it were just some random person
> who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it.  But the post was
> made by one of the Cambium guys themselves.
>
> Craig
>
>
> Quoting Faisal Imtiaz :
>
> > I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..
> > However I would make a general statement ..
> >
> > There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link,
> > there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the
> > industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it
> > for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums
> > can be the best or the worst of such examples.
> >
> > From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have
> > the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
> >
> > BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
> > what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did
> > challenge the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
> >
> > 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: "Craig Baird" 
> >> To: af@afmug.com
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
> >> Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
> >
> >> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
> >> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from
> >> a little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
> >> into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
> >> me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
> >> dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
> >> There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
> >> the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
> >> coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in
> >> different sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who
> >> worked with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that
> >> this was a problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble
> >> across this post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will
> >> be.  Both links are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it
> >> should be (-39 on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum
> modulation.
> >> There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There
> >> is no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues,
> >> aside from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the
> >> radios on one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
> >>
> >> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
> >> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On
> >> the other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
> >>
> >> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
> >> radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
> >>
> >> Craig
> >
> >
>



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

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Craig Baird]

Thanks Daniel.  This eases my mind a little since you are quite  
familiar with these radios.  Here is the Cambium Community post I'm  
referencing.  It's very clear that it means sub-bands:


http://tinyurl.com/j6lrsea

Thanks!

Craig


Quoting Daniel White :


Craig my guess would be they meant frequency band, not subband.

I can't think of any reason you couldn't use different sub-bands so  
long as the OMT covers the range (which in the case of 11GHz is most  
likely covers all subbands).


Daniel White
Managing Director – Hardware Distribution Sales
ConVergence Technologies
Cell: +1 (303) 746-3590
dwh...@converge-tech.com



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig Baird
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 10:04 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

Thanks Faisal.  I hope that's the case.  If it were just some random person
who made the post, I wouldn't worry so much about it.  But the post was
made by one of the Cambium guys themselves.

Craig


Quoting Faisal Imtiaz :

> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..
> However I would make a general statement ..
>
> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link,
> there may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the
> industry tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it
> for merit of correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums
> can be the best or the worst of such examples.
>
> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have
> the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
>
> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
> what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did
> challenge the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
>
> 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: "Craig Baird" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>
>> So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
>> recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from
>> a little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
>> into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
>> me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
>> dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
>> There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
>> the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
>> coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in
>> different sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who
>> worked with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that
>> this was a problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble
>> across this post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will
>> be.  Both links are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it
>> should be (-39 on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum
modulation.
>> There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There
>> is no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues,
>> aside from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the
>> radios on one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think  
it's related.

>>
>> In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
>> side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On
>> the other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
>>
>> So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
>> radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
>>
>> Craig
>
>





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

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

Not doing the transaction is fine, but the lie is something worthy of
leaving the company. I guess it would also depend on where in the food
chain the lady is in the company, our customer service does stupid shady
stuff all day long without the consent or knowledge of ownership. But when
ownership finds out they make it right.
On Apr 16, 2016 9:27 AM, "Jeremy"  wrote:

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a grey
area when it comes to legality.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
> processors allowing kiting
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc (ICI)
>  wrote:
>
>> My 2 cents:
>>
>> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some kind
>> of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as an
>> outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>>
>> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>>
>> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
>> business.  They make money.
>>
>> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>>
>> *Tyson Burris, President*
>>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>>
>> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
>> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
>> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>>
>>
>>
>> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
>> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
>> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
>> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
>> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
>> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org  to
>> current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes
>> sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and
>> get the cash back rewards
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy
>> checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance
>> plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks
>> are exempt from cash back rewards.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
>> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
>> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
>> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
>> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
>> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
>> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
>> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
>> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. We process a card for $20k
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
>> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
>> because of this)
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the
>> funds.
>>
>>
>>
>> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
>> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
>> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
>> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
>> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
>> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
>> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
>> relationship.”
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>>
>>
>>
>> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
>> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
>> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>>
>>
>>
>> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
>> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>>
>>
>>
>> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
>> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
>> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
>> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say o

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Erich Kaiser]

You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the
2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11.  The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with
2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal.  This is one of the big
issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of
spectrum.


Erich Kaiser
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However
> I would make a general statement ..
>
> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there
> may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry
> tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of
> correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or
> the worst of such examples.
>
> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the
> link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
>
> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
> what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge
> the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
>
> 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: "Craig Baird" 
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
> > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>
> > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
> > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
> > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
> > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
> > me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
> > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
> > There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
> > the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
> > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
> > sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
> > with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
> > problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
> > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
> > are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
> > on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
> > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
> > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
> > from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
> > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
> >
> > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
> > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
> > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
> >
> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
> > radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
> >
> > Craig
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Erich Kaiser]

Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048.


Erich Kaiser
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser 
wrote:

> You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the
> 2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11.  The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with
> 2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal.  This is one of the big
> issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of
> spectrum.
>
>
> Erich Kaiser
> North Central Tower
> er...@northcentraltower.com
> Office: 630-621-4804
> Cell: 630-777-9291
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However
>> I would make a general statement ..
>>
>> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there
>> may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry
>> tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of
>> correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or
>> the worst of such examples.
>>
>> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the
>> link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
>>
>> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
>> what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge
>> the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
>>
>> 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: "Craig Baird" 
>> > To: af@afmug.com
>> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
>> > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>>
>> > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
>> > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
>> > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
>> > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
>> > me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
>> > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
>> > There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
>> > the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
>> > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
>> > sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
>> > with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
>> > problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
>> > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
>> > are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
>> > on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
>> > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
>> > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
>> > from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
>> > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
>> >
>> > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
>> > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
>> > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
>> >
>> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
>> > radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
>> >
>> > Craig
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Gino Villarini]

I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement.  the B11 only
achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11.  B11
are inefficient Spectrum hogs


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser 
wrote:

> Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048.
>
>
> Erich Kaiser
> North Central Tower
> er...@northcentraltower.com
> Office: 630-621-4804
> Cell: 630-777-9291
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser  > wrote:
>
>> You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the
>> 2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11.  The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with
>> 2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal.  This is one of the big
>> issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of
>> spectrum.
>>
>>
>> Erich Kaiser
>> North Central Tower
>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>> Office: 630-621-4804
>> Cell: 630-777-9291
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz > > wrote:
>>
>>> I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..
>>> However I would make a general statement ..
>>>
>>> There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there
>>> may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry
>>> tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of
>>> correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or
>>> the worst of such examples.
>>>
>>> From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the
>>> link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.
>>>
>>> BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
>>> what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge
>>> the accepted status quo  in licensed links..
>>>
>>> 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: "Craig Baird" 
>>> > To: af@afmug.com
>>> > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
>>> > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>>>
>>> > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
>>> > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
>>> > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
>>> > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
>>> > me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
>>> > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
>>> > There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
>>> > the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
>>> > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
>>> > sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
>>> > with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
>>> > problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
>>> > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
>>> > are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
>>> > on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
>>> > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
>>> > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
>>> > from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
>>> > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
>>> >
>>> > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
>>> > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
>>> > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
>>> >
>>> > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
>>> > radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
>>> >
>>> > Craig
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Ken Hohhof]

I am puzzled by the AF11X, the choice of N connectors seems strange, I assume 
there will be a source of waveguide adapters and 11 GHz capable jumpers?  Or is 
Ubiquiti assuming everyone will use new Ubiquiti antennas?

Also, does anyone know why there are 2 N connectors?  Is the implication that 
it is dual pol XPIC capable or something?  Or is this a “cardboard mockup” to 
distract from Mimosa, and the connectorization is still a work in progress?  
Surely I’m not the only one asking these questions after the roadmap 
presentation at WISPAmerica, I haven’t had a chance to dig for the answers yet, 
probably others have.  And yes, I know, don’t call you Shirley.


From: Gino Villarini 
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:19 PM
To: Animal Farm 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement.  the B11 only 
achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11.  B11 are 
inefficient Spectrum hogs 


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser  
wrote:

  Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048. 



  Erich Kaiser 
  North Central Tower
  er...@northcentraltower.com
  Office: 630-621-4804
  Cell: 630-777-9291



  On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser  
wrote:

You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the 
2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11.  The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with 2+0 
could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal.  This is one of the big issues 
people have been running into is being able to find that type of spectrum. 


Erich Kaiser 
North Central Tower
er...@northcentraltower.com
Office: 630-621-4804
Cell: 630-777-9291


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  
wrote:

  I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However 
I would make a general statement ..

  There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there 
may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry tend 
to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of 
correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or the 
worst of such examples.

  >From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the 
link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.

  BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at 
what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge the 
accepted status quo  in licensed links..

  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: "Craig Baird" 
  > To: af@afmug.com
  > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
  > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

  > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
  > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
  > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
  > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
  > me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
  > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
  > There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
  > the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
  > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
  > sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
  > with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
  > problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
  > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
  > are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
  > on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
  > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
  > no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
  > from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
  > one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.
  >
  > In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
  > side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
  > other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.
  >
  > So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
  > radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?
  >
  > Craig

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Yes, each has it's pro's and con's. 

If you take the B11 out of the picture, then only choice would be something 
like a 820s type radio. 
B11 simply offers some very interesting options, and yes cost is one of the 
factors that we all have to work with. 

B11's spectral efficiency, yes we can argue about this glass half full or half 
empty. 
One has to keep in mind that B11's are introducing a very much needed technical 
element in the market... 
The ability to reuse the licensed channel in another direction, with gps sync. 

I believe that the Licensed Radio industry has not been innovative, and been 
stuck in their old ways... they have been tinkering with the same old FDD Radio 
concept with pretty much zero innovation 

In regards to AF11, my comments are, I am happy to see other folks realize that 
the artificial glass ceiling associated with licensed links is being challenged 
and broken..At the end of the day, bottom line is, FCC regulates / licenses 
Freq/Channel, they don't specify what flavor of protocol you can run on it 
! 

Personally speaking, we in this industry have been drinking too much of the 
marketing koolaid doled out by the mfg for too long... It is not about the 
white, purple , blue or green box that is moving packets... it is all about 
what can you do with it and how does this help you move packets and expand your 
network, without spending an arm and a leg. 

Let me be the first one to say this. in regards to licensed freq. ... to 
hell with spectral efficiency... it is all about a land grab... if you can get 
it, and put it to use, go for it now... cause once is it is depleted.. .you are 
pretty much SOL !. 

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 

> From: "Gino Villarini" 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 3:19:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

> I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement. the B11 only
> achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11. B11 are
> inefficient Spectrum hogs

> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser < er...@northcentraltower.com >
> wrote:

>> Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048.

>> Erich Kaiser
>> North Central Tower
>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>> Office: 630-621-4804
>> Cell: 630-777-9291

>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser < er...@northcentraltower.com >
>> wrote:

>>> You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as the 
>>> 2+0
>>> config on PTP820S vs B11. The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S with 2+0 
>>> could
>>> both be on Vertical or on Horizontal. This is one of the big issues people 
>>> have
>>> been running into is being able to find that type of spectrum.

>>> Erich Kaiser
>>> North Central Tower
>>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>>> Office: 630-621-4804
>>> Cell: 630-777-9291

>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net >
>>> wrote:

 I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However I
 would make a general statement ..

 There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there 
 may be
 some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry tend to 
 take
 it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of correctness.
 Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or the worst of
 such examples.

 From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the 
 link
 working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.

 BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at what
 Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge the
 accepted status quo in licensed links..

 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: "Craig Baird" < cr...@xpressweb.com >
 > To: af@afmug.com
 > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
 > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

 > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link. We
 > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
 > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating. While looking
 > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
 > me. On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
 > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
 > There is no explanation of why this is the case. In our situation,
 > the radios are in separate sub-bands. When we did the frequency
 > coordination, the only two 80 MHz

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Jason McKemie]

I would have done the same thing.

On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jeremy  wrote:

> Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a grey
> area when it comes to legality.
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
>> processors allowing kiting
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>> (ICI) > > wrote:
>>
>>> My 2 cents:
>>>
>>> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some
>>> kind of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as
>>> an outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>>>
>>> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>>>
>>> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
>>> business.  They make money.
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>>>
>>> *Tyson Burris, President*
>>>  *Internet Communications Inc.*
>>>  *739 Commerce Dr.*
>>>  *Franklin, IN 46131*
>>>
>>> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
>>> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
>>> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
>>> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
>>> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
>>> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
>>> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
>>> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org  to
>>> current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes
>>> sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment
>>> and get the cash back rewards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank
>>> “courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash
>>> advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the
>>> checks are exempt from cash back rewards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>>> account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
>>> the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
>>> her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
>>> problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
>>> you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
>>> credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
>>> problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
>>> demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
>>> kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. We process a card for $20k
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
>>> emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
>>> because of this)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. I reply it’s legit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release
>>> the funds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
>>> the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
>>> inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
>>> I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
>>> transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
>>> this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
>>> non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
>>> relationship.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
>>> determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
>>> payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
>>> process the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone
>>> and call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said
>>> two times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her
>>> mind later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then not
>>> honor it, even if you made a mistake.  I’m particularly bothered by her
>>> asking for “invoices and documentation” to support

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Chuck Hogg]

Um, so if you don't seewhy this isn't allowed, I don't know what to say.
And to quit a processor over running an unnatural charge that wasn't a
normal part of your charge history is crazy.  I bet they tried to help you
and thats why the runnaround only to be told by their bank that its a
no-no.  Its also in most merchant agreements.



On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jason McKemie 
wrote:

> I would have done the same thing.
>
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jeremy  > wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a
>> grey area when it comes to legality.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
>>> processors allowing kiting
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
>>> (ICI)  wrote:
>>>
 My 2 cents:

 Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some
 kind of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as
 an outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?

 Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.

 If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
 business.  They make money.

 Disclaimer:  I don't use them

 *Tyson Burris, President*
  *Internet Communications Inc.*
  *739 Commerce Dr.*
  *Franklin, IN 46131*

 *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
 *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
 *Online: **www.surfici.net*



 Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!

 On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
 wrote:

 I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
 on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
 about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I
 really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
 people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
 resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org 
 to current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is
 sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine
 with IP Pay.



 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment
 and get the cash back rewards



 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank
 “courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash
 advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the
 checks are exempt from cash back rewards.



 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
 account for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research
 the Cap 1 Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked
 her to triple verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no
 problem.  They said if you have that resource to process your own card and
 you’re paying your minimum balances etc. it’s a non-issue.



 4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a
 credit card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a
 problem when there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article
 demonstrates its OK when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even
 kiting, it’s just processing a credit card for cash in the bank.



 5. We process a card for $20k



 6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and
 emails me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds
 because of this)



 7. I reply it’s legit.



 8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release
 the funds.



 9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with
 the transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but
 inappropriate for you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud
 I have, as the CEO of Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this
 transaction. If at this time you are cause further delays in processing
 this transaction then I will consider your actions as unreasonable
 non-performance and a termination of our long standing business
 relationship.”



 10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.



 11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and
 determined the card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the
 payment but it isn’t a kosher practice.



 12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to
 process the

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Erich Kaiser]

I believe the af11x image is just a model of a radio(actual radio will not
have n connectors) someone was talking about it after Louisville.

Constructive criticism is not bad for any vendor, bottom line is with
320mhz of spectrum you should be able to do over 4g aggregate with Today's
standards... I can't wait for new trangos coming out in all normal licensed
freqs... Don't think you will see that with mimosa Bxx... Don't get me
wrong guys at Mimosa are awesome but they have hit a chord and need to
capitalize on it.  256qam is 5 years ago..
On Apr 16, 2016 2:29 PM, "Ken Hohhof"  wrote:

> I am puzzled by the AF11X, the choice of N connectors seems strange, I
> assume there will be a source of waveguide adapters and 11 GHz capable
> jumpers?  Or is Ubiquiti assuming everyone will use new Ubiquiti antennas?
>
> Also, does anyone know why there are 2 N connectors?  Is the implication
> that it is dual pol XPIC capable or something?  Or is this a “cardboard
> mockup” to distract from Mimosa, and the connectorization is still a work
> in progress?  Surely I’m not the only one asking these questions after the
> roadmap presentation at WISPAmerica, I haven’t had a chance to dig for the
> answers yet, probably others have.  And yes, I know, don’t call you Shirley.
>
>
> *From:* Gino Villarini 
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:19 PM
> *To:* Animal Farm 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration
>
> I beg to differ with you Faisal on the Mimosa statement.  the B11 only
> achievement is low cost, which is soon to be out priced by UBNT AF11.  B11
> are inefficient Spectrum hogs
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Erich Kaiser  > wrote:
>
>> Also max QAM level on B11 is 256 on the PTP820S it is 2048.
>>
>>
>> Erich Kaiser
>> North Central Tower
>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>> Office: 630-621-4804
>> Cell: 630-777-9291
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Erich Kaiser <
>> er...@northcentraltower.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You actually need double the spectrum to accomplish the same thing as
>>> the 2+0 config on PTP820S vs B11.  The B11 is using both H and V PTP820S
>>> with 2+0 could both be on Vertical or on Horizontal.  This is one of the
>>> big issues people have been running into is being able to find that type of
>>> spectrum.
>>>
>>>
>>> Erich Kaiser
>>> North Central Tower
>>> er...@northcentraltower.com
>>> Office: 630-621-4804
>>> Cell: 630-777-9291
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <
>>> fai...@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
>>>
 I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics..
 However I would make a general statement ..

 There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there
 may be some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry
 tend to take it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of
 correctness. Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or
 the worst of such examples.

 >From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have
 the link working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.

 BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at
 what Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge
 the accepted status quo  in licensed links..

 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: "Craig Baird" 
 > To: af@afmug.com
 > Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
 > Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

 > So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
 > recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
 > little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
 > into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
 > me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
 > dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
 > There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
 > the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
 > coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
 > sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
 > with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
 > problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
 > post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
 > are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
 > on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
 > There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
 > no indication tha

Re: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration

[Trey Scarborough]

Long as the TX of one radio is not in the RX range of the other radio at 
the same site you should be fine. With the issues you are seeing I would 
recommend turning the power down a little bit -39 may be a little hot 
for you to run a higher modulation without errors. It would probably be 
better a few db less.


On 4/16/2016 10:56 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

I am not familiar with the hardware nor the intricate specifics.. However I 
would make a general statement ..

There are a lot of old wives tales associated with licensed link, there may be 
some context to these old wives tails, most folks in the industry tend to take 
it for face value, very few end up examining it for merit of correctness. 
Comments made by folks in the public forums can be the best or the worst of 
such examples.


From the sounds of it, you have done everything right, and you have the link 
working, then anything else would be an old wives tale.


BTW, if you were able to get 2x80mhz channels in 11ghz, take a look at what 
Mimosa B11's can do with them and yes these folks did challenge the 
accepted status quo  in licensed links..

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: "Craig Baird" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32:09 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] PTP820S 2+0 configuration



So a few months ago we purchased an 11 GHz PTP820S 2+0 link.  We
recently installed it, and it appears to be working fine, aside from a
little bit of frame loss that we are investigating.  While looking
into this frame loss issue, I stumbled across something that concerns
me.  On Cambium's support forum there is a post that states that when
dealing with 2+0 links both radios must be in the same sub-band.
There is no explanation of why this is the case.  In our situation,
the radios are in separate sub-bands.  When we did the frequency
coordination, the only two 80 MHz channels available were in different
sub-bands.  I passed those channels along to our vendor who worked
with Cambium to get a BOM.  At no point did anyone say that this was a
problem.  So now, fast forward a few months, and I stumble across this
post, and now I'm wondering what the implications will be.  Both links
are up and running.  Signal on both is right where it should be (-39
on one, -40 on the other).  Both are running at maximum modulation.
There are no defective blocks shown on the radio interfaces.  There is
no indication that this sub-band mismatch is causing any issues, aside
from possibly this frame loss thing.  However, if I mute the radios on
one link, the frame loss persists, so I don't think it's related.

In case it matters, the two links are oppositely polarized.  On one
side we've got a 2 foot dish with an OMT combining the radios.  On the
other side, we've got an 8 foot dual-pol dish.

So I'm wondering if anyone knows why Cambium says that you can't use
radios from different sub-bands.  Are we in for trouble at some point?

Craig

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[Scott Vander Dussen]

In my OP explanation message I cited my reason for leaving, and it's not what 
you've cited here... But whatever!

Thanks,
'S

Sent mobile!

On Apr 16, 2016, at 16:56, Chuck Hogg 
mailto:ch...@shelbybb.com>> wrote:

Um, so if you don't seewhy this isn't allowed, I don't know what to say.  And 
to quit a processor over running an unnatural charge that wasn't a normal part 
of your charge history is crazy.  I bet they tried to help you and thats why 
the runnaround only to be told by their bank that its a no-no.  Its also in 
most merchant agreements.



On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jason McKemie 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> 
wrote:
I would have done the same thing.

On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jeremy 
>
 wrote:
Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a grey area 
when it comes to legality.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm 
 wrote:
ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for 
processors allowing kiting

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc (ICI) 
 wrote:
My 2 cents:

Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some kind of 
charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as an outsider, 
if you did it for the rewards perk...why?

Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.

If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their business.  They 
make money.

Disclaimer:  I don't use them

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 Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen  wrote:

I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here on-list.  I 
don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant about IPPay 
because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because I really value 
this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful people.  Few things 
have shaped my business and been as valuable of a resource as this list 
(beginning as Part-15.org to current), so thank you 
everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is sometimes sharing the less than 
stellar experiences we face, here’s mine with IP Pay.

1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment and get 
the cash back rewards

2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank “courtesy 
checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a cash advance plus 
then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the checks are exempt 
from cash back rewards.

3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank account 
for the cash rewards.  She said no problem, I asked her to research the Cap 1 
Visa ToS to verify, she did and again no problem.  I then asked her to triple 
verify by confirming with her supervisor, and again no problem.  They said if 
you have that resource to process your own card and you’re paying your minimum 
balances etc. it’s a non-issue.

4. I researched “Credit Card Kiting” which is the process of paying a credit 
card balance with another credit card- the practice is only a problem when 
there is deception involved.  Even the Wikipedia article demonstrates its OK 
when there is not deception.  And this isn’t even kiting, it’s just processing 
a credit card for cash in the bank.

5. We process a card for $20k

6. Tanya Krapil from IPPay halts the transaction,  holds the funds and emails 
me asking if it’s legit.  (lost a whole day of expected funds because of this)

7. I reply it’s legit.

8. Tayan demands invoices and “documentation” before she will release the funds.

9. I reply: “We don't share our invoices with parties not involved with the 
transaction, that is not only a breach of confidentiality but inappropriate for 
you to ask. While I can appreciate your concern for fraud I have, as the CEO of 
Velociter, already confirmed the legitimacy of this transaction. If at this 
time you are cause further delays in processing this transaction then I will 
consider your actions as unreasonable non-performance and a termination of our 
long standing business relationship.”

10. Tayna the replies that she will process this transaction.

11. Subsequently Tayna spoke telephonically with other staff and determined the 
card was employee owned.  Tayna said she’d process the payment but it isn’t a 
kosher practice.

12. Tayna then emails me to tell me just kidding, she’s not going to process 
the payment after all. (losing yet another day of expected funds)

My grief is that on a $20k tag Tayna doesn’t bother to pick up the phone and 
call, just arbitrarily held the funds and sent an email.  Then she said two 
times that she would indeed process the payment only to then change her mind 
later.  It’s horrible customer service to say one thing and then n

Re: [AFMUG] Merchant services

[That One Guy /sarcasm]

It sounds to me like the issue has little to do with whether IP Pay wanted
to do the transaction or not. It has to do with the fact they promised to
do it, then rescinded that promise, creating a serious operational rift.

Personally, it sounds like Scott was trying to nickel and dime some extra
cash flow, but attitudes of superiority aside, an extra nickel, or an extra
dime, is an extra nickel or dime.

the problem arose when the dishonesty took place on the part of IP Pay.

it doesnt matter whether what scott was doing was right or wrong, once a
business commits to something, they need to do it.

It doesnt matter if the story was Scott was going to trade crack for
heroin, and the heroin dealer said hed give him back 5% of the crack on the
transaction. Once the word was given, it would be a matter of principle
that the word be abided by, and in this case, it was not.

any company, who allows its representatives to not stand by their word
(given on behalf of the company) is not worth dealing with. It could be a
matter that this sheila decided to allow the transaction, and it was her
supervisor who made the decision not to allow it, but the reality is, the
coos should not be in a position where she is allowed to communicate
decisions to customers she is not allowed to make if this is the case. Once
a representative of a company makes a commitment on the behalf of the
company, unless they are going to terminate the employee, that commitment
needs to be adhered to.

If I were scott, Id do something very simple to determine my relationship
with said company. Id call and ask to speak with that sheila, if the call
is transferred to her, then the relationship is done


On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
wrote:

> In my OP explanation message I cited my reason for leaving, and it's not
> what you've cited here... But whatever!
>
> Thanks,
> 'S
>
> Sent mobile!
>
> On Apr 16, 2016, at 16:56, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>
> Um, so if you don't seewhy this isn't allowed, I don't know what to say.
> And to quit a processor over running an unnatural charge that wasn't a
> normal part of your charge history is crazy.  I bet they tried to help you
> and thats why the runnaround only to be told by their bank that its a
> no-no.  Its also in most merchant agreements.
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> I would have done the same thing.
>>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016, Jeremy  wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, but this is a ridiculous reason to leave IPPay.  Also, it is a
>>> grey area when it comes to legality.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:55 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 ther may be ftc regulations that would create a criminal liability for
 processors allowing kiting

 On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Tyson @ Internet Communications Inc
 (ICI)  wrote:

> My 2 cents:
>
> Who cares! The merchant gets their damn money.  Unless you have some
> kind of charge back history, it's stupid.   The only thing I will say, as
> an outsider, if you did it for the rewards perk...why?
>
> Doesn't the reward get off set by the merchant fees?  It's a wash.
>
> If the intent was for something else, it's really none of their
> business.  They make money.
>
> Disclaimer:  I don't use them
>
> *Tyson Burris, President*
>   *Internet Communications Inc.*
>   *739 Commerce Dr.*
>   *Franklin, IN 46131*
>
> *317-738-0320 <317-738-0320> Daytime #*
> *317-412-1540 <317-412-1540> Cell/Direct #*
> *Online: **www.surfici.net*
>
>
>
> Forgive the brevity, the typos and my fat fingers!
>
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Scott Vander Dussen 
> wrote:
>
> I’ve received a few off-list request for my story and a couple here
> on-list.  I don’t mind sharing, I just didn’t want to come out with a rant
> about IPPay because that wasn’t my goal.  I share this experience because 
> I
> really value this list and the contributions made by all you wonderful
> people.  Few things have shaped my business and been as valuable of a
> resource as this list (beginning as Part-15.org 
> to current), so thank you everyone!  (:  Part of that awesomeness is
> sometimes sharing the less than stellar experiences we face, here’s mine
> with IP Pay.
>
>
>
> 1. I wanted to make a purchase that was not eligible for a CC payment
> and get the cash back rewards
>
>
>
> 2. I contacted Cap1 and asked if I could use one of those blank
> “courtesy checks” they send out to write to myself and basically get a 
> cash
> advance plus then get the cash back rewards. They said no problem, but the
> checks are exempt from cash back rewards.
>
>
>
> 3. I asked if I as a business could run my own card into my own bank
>