date:20170331

Thanks for the replies.

I bought the IPs at auction, so they were assigned elsewhere previously.
All POC information has been updated. I'm going to have DNS setup sometime
soon, but my email is run on Google Apps, so I don't think that will be
necessary - correct me if I am wrong. What does BGPmon do exactly?

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Justin Wilson  wrote:

> 1.If you can research where the block came from that will help.  Was it
> assigned somewhere else? Or is it part of space IANA released?
> 2.Make sure your POCs are up to date.
> 3.Make sure you have a reverse DNS server setup.  Very important if you
> have mail servers you are going to put on these blocks.
> 4.Once you have the blocks notify your upstreams.
> 5.Subscribe to something like BGPmon to make your life simpler.
>
> Just some things off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net 
>
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
>
> > On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:17 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote:
> >
> > So, Paul's thread has me a bit concerned about activating a new IP block
> that I got through ARIN. Up to this point I've just used addresses
> delegated by my upstream. In the next few weeks I'm going to be bringing
> my own addresses on-net.
> >
> > Anyone have a "checklist" of things that need be done to get this
> working correctly?
>
>

[AFMUG] Forget Wi-Fi, This Ultrafast New Technology Is 100 Times Faster Than the Best Wi-Fi

2017-03-31 Thread Jaime Solorza

Old technology revamp

Myhttp://
wallstreetpit.com/113133-forget-wi-fi-ultrafast-technology-100-times-faster-best-wi-fi/?google_editors_picks=true

Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

2017-03-31 Thread Chuck McCown

Make sure to only employ vectoring on adjacent pairs in the same cable.  

From: Stefan Englhardt 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 7:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

Zyxel VES1724-55C

1HE, Temperaturehardened, 24 Modems, Vectoring, 2xSFP or GE, Webinterface

Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Josh Luthman
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. März 2017 22:56
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

Awesome sauce, thanks!

Anyone have a recommendation for a VDSL dslam? =)

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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM,  wrote:

  VDSL modems are standards based and should work with other dslams.  

  From: Josh Luthman 

  Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:16 PM

  To: af@afmug.com 

  Subject: [AFMUG] VDSL question

  I've had an old old old Zyxel VES 1000 dslam that I inherited from the 
building.  How interchangeable are dslam and vdsl modems?  I just pulled up my 
last spare and the replacement looks to be $1900 on ebay. 

  All 12 ports are mode "10baseS".  They have various up/down rates.  I think 
we have Zyxel and SMC VDSL modems through out the customer base.

  Can I just get any VDSL dslam and expect it to work?

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

Re: [AFMUG] New IP block

The list I remember was more extensive, but here's one that's ringing a bell. 


https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20130122055317/http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/GeoIP
 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Sterling Jacobson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:38:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] New IP block 



There is also a list of geo response sites that you should make sure are 
updated with your new geo information for your block. 

I didn’t know about that and all of the major streaming services banned all of 
my blocks one day, causing a ton of phone calls. 

It cost me a few customers and lots of grief with a handful of streaming 
service (mostly VUDU, they were the worst). 

Apparently most if not all of these streaming services use a handful of these 
geo services/databases to determine if your IP address/block is out of country 
or area. 

Then they blacklist the entire IP block in their systems. 

They thought ALL of my customers were doing VPNs from some other country. 

Though I never figured out where they thought it was from and ARIN had all my 
correct info. 

I had to talk to each provider directly, and update a few of these main GEO 
services directly. 

Eventually, like as in months, it worked out and I no longer have those 
problems. 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 6:17 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] New IP block 

So, Paul's thread has me a bit concerned about activating a new IP block that I 
got through ARIN. Up to this point I've just used addresses delegated by my 
upstream. In the next few weeks I'm going to be bringing my own addresses 
on-net. 



Anyone have a "checklist" of things that need be done to get this working 
correctly?

Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

2017-03-31 Thread Stefan Englhardt

Zyxel VES1724-55C



1HE, Temperaturehardened, 24 Modems, Vectoring, 2xSFP or GE, Webinterface





Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von Josh Luthman
Gesendet: Freitag, 31. März 2017 22:56
An: af@afmug.com
Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question



Awesome sauce, thanks!



Anyone have a recommendation for a VDSL dslam? =)






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



On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM,  > 
wrote:

VDSL modems are standards based and should work with other dslams.



From: Josh Luthman

Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:16 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: [AFMUG] VDSL question



I've had an old old old Zyxel VES 1000 dslam that I inherited from the 
building.  How interchangeable are dslam and vdsl modems?  I just pulled up my 
last spare and the replacement looks to be $1900 on ebay.



All 12 ports are mode "10baseS".  They have various up/down rates.  I think we 
have Zyxel and SMC VDSL modems through out the customer base.

Can I just get any VDSL dslam and expect it to work?




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

Re: [AFMUG] New IP block

2017-03-31 Thread Sterling Jacobson

There is also a list of geo response sites that you should make sure are 
updated with your new geo information for your block.

I didn’t know about that and all of the major streaming services banned all of 
my blocks one day, causing a ton of phone calls.

It cost me a few customers and lots of grief with a handful of streaming 
service (mostly VUDU, they were the worst).

Apparently most if not all of these streaming services use a handful of these 
geo services/databases to determine if your IP address/block is out of country 
or area.

Then they blacklist the entire IP block in their systems.

They thought ALL of my customers were doing VPNs from some other country.

Though I never figured out where they thought it was from and ARIN had all my 
correct info.

I had to talk to each provider directly, and update a few of these main GEO 
services directly.

Eventually, like as in months, it worked out and I no longer have those 
problems.



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 6:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] New IP block

So, Paul's thread has me a bit concerned about activating a new IP block that I 
got through ARIN. Up to this point I've just used addresses delegated by my 
upstream. In the next few weeks I'm going to be bringing my own addresses 
on-net.

Anyone have a "checklist" of things that need be done to get this working 
correctly?

Re: [AFMUG] New IP block

2017-03-31 Thread Erich Kaiser

Make sure origin ASN is established correctly in Arin.


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


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:

> 1.If you can research where the block came from that will help.  Was it
> assigned somewhere else? Or is it part of space IANA released?
> 2.Make sure your POCs are up to date.
> 3.Make sure you have a reverse DNS server setup.  Very important if you
> have mail servers you are going to put on these blocks.
> 4.Once you have the blocks notify your upstreams.
> 5.Subscribe to something like BGPmon to make your life simpler.
>
> Just some things off the top of my head.
>
>
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
>
> ---
> http://www.mtin.net Owner/CEO
> xISP Solutions- Consulting – Data Centers - Bandwidth
>
> http://www.midwest-ix.com  COO/Chairman
> Internet Exchange - Peering - Distributed Fabric
>
> > On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:17 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
> >
> > So, Paul's thread has me a bit concerned about activating a new IP block
> that I got through ARIN. Up to this point I've just used addresses
> delegated by my upstream. In the next few weeks I'm going to be bringing
> my own addresses on-net.
> >
> > Anyone have a "checklist" of things that need be done to get this
> working correctly?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Python and snmpset

2017-03-31 Thread dmmoffett

In Python try Snimpy. 
 Snimpy. Is. The. Shit.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 6:01 PM, Matt  wrote:
> 
> Anyone using Python and netsnmp library to set values on Cambium gear?
> Care to share a code example?  Having trouble getting the snmpset to
> work but snmpget works fine so far.
> 
> If I use snmpset on linux command line it works fine.  This is on
> Centos 7 release.
> 
> This seems to work fine.
> 
> import netsnmp
> 
> for line in ips:
>  oid = netsnmp.Varbind('.1.3.6.1.2.1.1.5.0')
>  result = netsnmp.snmpget(oid, Version = 2, DestHost=line,
> Community=snmp_rw_string)
>  print result
> 
> So does this:
> 
> for line in ips:
>  oid = netsnmp.Varbind('.1.3.6.1.4.1.161.19.3.3.2.220.0')
>  result = netsnmp.snmpget(oid, Version = 2, DestHost=line,
> Community=snmp_rw_string)
>  print result
> 
> This not so much:
> 
> for line in ips:
>  oid = netsnmp.Varbind('enterprises',
> '.1.3.6.1.4.1.161.19.3.3.2.220.0', '20', 'INTEGER')
>  result = netsnmp.snmpset(oid, Version = 2, DestHost=line,
> Community=snmp_rw_string)
>  print result
> 
> Any python gurus lurking in here???

Re: [AFMUG] New IP block

2017-03-31 Thread Justin Wilson

1.If you can research where the block came from that will help.  Was it 
assigned somewhere else? Or is it part of space IANA released?
2.Make sure your POCs are up to date.
3.Make sure you have a reverse DNS server setup.  Very important if you have 
mail servers you are going to put on these blocks.
4.Once you have the blocks notify your upstreams.  
5.Subscribe to something like BGPmon to make your life simpler.

Just some things off the top of my head.

Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

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

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

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:17 PM, Jason McKemie  
> wrote:
> 
> So, Paul's thread has me a bit concerned about activating a new IP block that 
> I got through ARIN. Up to this point I've just used addresses delegated by my 
> upstream. In the next few weeks I'm going to be bringing my own addresses 
> on-net.
> 
> Anyone have a "checklist" of things that need be done to get this working 
> correctly?

[AFMUG] New IP block

So, Paul's thread has me a bit concerned about activating a new IP block
that I got through ARIN. Up to this point I've just used addresses
delegated by my upstream. In the next few weeks I'm going to be bringing
my own addresses on-net.

Anyone have a "checklist" of things that need be done to get this working
correctly?

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Very nice, and of course there is no small business exemption I assume?

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> Yeah, tough to read.
>
> Big issues I had with it:
>
> Creates 3 classes of information that you have to protect in different
> ways - “PI” (proprietary information), “CPNI” (customer proprietary network
> information), and "content of communications"
>
> Requires that you keep track of “opt-in” for certain things, and “opt-out”
> for others, that you have records of the customers consent (or lack
> thereof).
>
> "we define “customer” as (1) a current or former subscriber to a 
> telecommunications
> service; or (2) an applicant for a telecommunications service.” - for
> purposes of privacy you now have to protect customers who are not and may
> never be actual customers.
>
> Defines CPNI (the most protected category) as:
>
>  Broadband Service Plans
>  Geo-location
>  MAC Addresses and Other Device Identifiers
>  IP Addresses and Domain Name Information
>  Traffic Statistics
>  Port Information
>  Application Header
>  Application Usage
>  Application Payload
>  Customer Premises Equipment and Device Information
>
>
> Keep in mind CPNI is the one the FCC has and will enforce severe penalties
> for disclosing to anyone you have not absolutely positively identified as
> the owner of the account.   To me this means the kid calling in to get a
> static IP address for his X-Box is now a landmine for your customer service
> people.   Same goes for discussing or sharing usage information.   "Your
> wife owns the account, not you so I can’t tell you your connection seems
> slow because your son is downloading the new 475Tb XBox game.
>
> MAC Addresses?   Does your system actually hide all of those from other
> customers?   Many WISP systems do, but not all network designs do so.
>
> "We find that broadband service plans meet the statutory
> definition of CPNI in the broadband context because they relate to the
> quantity, type, amount of use,
> location, and technical configuration of a telecommunications service.123 We
> agree with NTCA that
> “information related to a customer’s broadband service plan can be viewed
> as analogous to voice
> telephony service plans,”124 which the Commission has long considered to
> be CPNI in the voice
> context.125 These plans detail subscription information, including the
> type of service (e.g., fixed or
> mobile; cable or fiber; prepaid or term contract), speed, pricing, and
> capacity (e.g., data caps).
>
>
> Does this putting up a yard sign without obtaining written permission from
> the customer is now a potential violation of CPNI?   Or taking it to the
> ridiculous - maybe we need plain white vans so we don’t disclose who has
> service by accident.
>
> Geo-location. Geo-location is information related to the physical or
> geographical
> location of a customer or the customer’s device(s), regardless of the
> particular technological method used
> to obtain this information.
>
>
> How precise is the restriction on geolocation?   Is this now a violation?
>
> 105:~ Mark$ traceroute 64.246.126.114
> traceroute to 64.246.126.114 (64.246.126.114), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
>  1  xe-2-0-0-23.corp-mxi0.amplex.net (172.16.64.254)  7.655 ms  1.063 ms
> 1.003 ms
>  2  ae1-11.corp-srx0.amplex.net (64.246.109.89)  1.230 ms  1.182 ms
> 1.048 ms
>  3  ae0-11.hq-mx0.amplex.net (64.246.109.25)  1.361 ms  1.579 ms  1.097 ms
>  4  ge-0-0-0-0.luckey-gw.amplex.net (64.246.96.220)  51.210 ms  38.380
> ms  39.950 ms
>
> seems I live in Luckey, Ohio.
>
> Lots more stuff like this that isn’t well defined or thought out.
>
> Now we get into “PI”:
>
> We have analyzed descriptions of PII in the record, our prior orders,233
> NIST,234 the FTC,235 the Administration’s proposed CPBR,236 and other
> federal and state statutes and regulations.237 We find that examples of
> PII include, but are not limited to: name; Social Security number; date of
> birth; mother’s maiden name; government-issued identifiers (e.g., driver’s
> license number); physical address; email address or other online contact
> information;238 phone numbers; MAC addresses or other unique device
> identifiers; IP addresses; and persistent online or unique advertising
> identifiers. Several of these data elements may also be CPNI
>
> lots more stuff like this, but I’m tired of reading it.
>
>
> Mark
>
> On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Adam Moffett  > wrote:
>
> I started reading the overturned order...19 pages in I realized there were
> 200 pages to go and I don't have time for it.
>
> The privacy protections stated in the existing US Code section 222 (
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222) seem clear and sufficient
> to me.  What additional protections would the overturned FCC order have
> provided consumers.  What additional burdens would it impose on ISP's?
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

2017-03-31 Thread Mark Radabaugh

Yeah, tough to read.

Big issues I had with it:

Creates 3 classes of information that you have to protect in different ways - 
“PI” (proprietary information), “CPNI” (customer proprietary network 
information), and "content of communications"

Requires that you keep track of “opt-in” for certain things, and “opt-out” for 
others, that you have records of the customers consent (or lack thereof).

"we define “customer” as (1) a current or former subscriber to a 
telecommunications service; or (2) an applicant for a telecommunications 
service.” - for purposes of privacy you now have to protect customers who are 
not and may never be actual customers.

Defines CPNI (the most protected category) as:

 Broadband Service Plans
 Geo-location
 MAC Addresses and Other Device Identifiers
 IP Addresses and Domain Name Information
 Traffic Statistics
 Port Information
 Application Header
 Application Usage
 Application Payload
 Customer Premises Equipment and Device Information

Keep in mind CPNI is the one the FCC has and will enforce severe penalties for 
disclosing to anyone you have not absolutely positively identified as the owner 
of the account.   To me this means the kid calling in to get a static IP 
address for his X-Box is now a landmine for your customer service people.   
Same goes for discussing or sharing usage information.   "Your wife owns the 
account, not you so I can’t tell you your connection seems slow because your 
son is downloading the new 475Tb XBox game. 

MAC Addresses?   Does your system actually hide all of those from other 
customers?   Many WISP systems do, but not all network designs do so.

"We find that broadband service plans meet the statutory
definition of CPNI in the broadband context because they relate to the 
quantity, type, amount of use,
location, and technical configuration of a telecommunications service.123 We 
agree with NTCA that
“information related to a customer’s broadband service plan can be viewed as 
analogous to voice
telephony service plans,”124 which the Commission has long considered to be 
CPNI in the voice
context.125 These plans detail subscription information, including the type of 
service (e.g., fixed or
mobile; cable or fiber; prepaid or term contract), speed, pricing, and capacity 
(e.g., data caps).

Does this putting up a yard sign without obtaining written permission from the 
customer is now a potential violation of CPNI?   Or taking it to the ridiculous 
- maybe we need plain white vans so we don’t disclose who has service by 
accident.

Geo-location. Geo-location is information related to the physical or 
geographical
location of a customer or the customer’s device(s), regardless of the 
particular technological method used
to obtain this information.

How precise is the restriction on geolocation?   Is this now a violation?

105:~ Mark$ traceroute 64.246.126.114
traceroute to 64.246.126.114 (64.246.126.114), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
 1  xe-2-0-0-23.corp-mxi0.amplex.net (172.16.64.254)  7.655 ms  1.063 ms  1.003 
ms
 2  ae1-11.corp-srx0.amplex.net (64.246.109.89)  1.230 ms  1.182 ms  1.048 ms
 3  ae0-11.hq-mx0.amplex.net (64.246.109.25)  1.361 ms  1.579 ms  1.097 ms
 4  ge-0-0-0-0.luckey-gw.amplex.net (64.246.96.220)  51.210 ms  38.380 ms  
39.950 ms

seems I live in Luckey, Ohio.   

Lots more stuff like this that isn’t well defined or thought out.

Now we get into “PI”:

We have analyzed descriptions of PII in the record, our prior orders,233 
NIST,234 the FTC,235 the Administration’s proposed CPBR,236 and other federal 
and state statutes and regulations.237 We find that examples of PII include, 
but are not limited to: name; Social Security number; date of birth; mother’s 
maiden name; government-issued identifiers (e.g., driver’s license number); 
physical address; email address or other online contact information;238 phone 
numbers; MAC addresses or other unique device identifiers; IP addresses; and 
persistent online or unique advertising identifiers. Several of these data 
elements may also be CPNI

lots more stuff like this, but I’m tired of reading it.

Mark 

> On Mar 31, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> I started reading the overturned order...19 pages in I realized there were 
> 200 pages to go and I don't have time for it.
> 
> The privacy protections stated in the existing US Code section 222 
> (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 
> ) seem clear and sufficient 
> to me.  What additional protections would the overturned FCC order have 
> provided consumers.  What additional burdens would it impose on ISP's?
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mark Radabaugh" >
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Sent: 3/31/2017 2:21:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
> 
>> This is the order that was overturned by Congress, and will go away if the 
>> President signs the

Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

2017-03-31 Thread Lewis Bergman

Zyxel, and others, have a number of config that are automatically loaded to
their own modems but not others.  This may led to unexpected results when
swapping DSLAMs between manufacturers.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017, 3:56 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Awesome sauce, thanks!
>
> Anyone have a recommendation for a VDSL dslam? =)
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM,  wrote:
>
> VDSL modems are standards based and should work with other dslams.
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 12:16 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] VDSL question
>
> I've had an old old old Zyxel VES 1000 dslam that I inherited from the
> building.  How interchangeable are dslam and vdsl modems?  I just pulled up
> my last spare and the replacement looks to be $1900 on ebay.
>
> All 12 ports are mode "10baseS".  They have various up/down rates.  I
> think we have Zyxel and SMC VDSL modems through out the customer base.
>
> Can I just get any VDSL dslam and expect it to work?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Python and snmpset

2017-03-31 Thread Matt

Anyone using Python and netsnmp library to set values on Cambium gear?
 Care to share a code example?  Having trouble getting the snmpset to
work but snmpget works fine so far.

If I use snmpset on linux command line it works fine.  This is on
Centos 7 release.

This seems to work fine.

import netsnmp

for line in ips:
  oid = netsnmp.Varbind('.1.3.6.1.2.1.1.5.0')
  result = netsnmp.snmpget(oid, Version = 2, DestHost=line,
Community=snmp_rw_string)
  print result

So does this:

for line in ips:
  oid = netsnmp.Varbind('.1.3.6.1.4.1.161.19.3.3.2.220.0')
  result = netsnmp.snmpget(oid, Version = 2, DestHost=line,
Community=snmp_rw_string)
  print result

This not so much:

for line in ips:
  oid = netsnmp.Varbind('enterprises',
'.1.3.6.1.4.1.161.19.3.3.2.220.0', '20', 'INTEGER')
  result = netsnmp.snmpset(oid, Version = 2, DestHost=line,
Community=snmp_rw_string)
  print result

Any python gurus lurking in here???

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

2017-03-31 Thread PE R

Hello,
ZTE has not completed Interoperability Testing (IOT) with Ubiquiti, therefore, 
their EMS and ACS will not be able to manage our ONTs, nor, is there any 
guarantee that traffic will be passed.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding ZTE IOT.
Thanks -
Parker

  From: Chuck Hogg 
 To: "af@afmug.com"  
 Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 1:21 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

It works...I guess if you are looking to manage it in their platform, that 
might be difficult, but all you need is a profile for it on the OLT.
Regards,
Chuck
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:07 PM,  wrote:

I would not expect any random ONT to have full functionality.  They might 
workish... From: Jason McKemie Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:56 AMTo: 
af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON So, other ONTs will work? The 
beta store is sold out of the Ubiquiti ONTs every time I check.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

 The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other GPON equipment.  
ZTE included.     Regards,
Chuck   On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:

I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely not light stuff...  

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing   2+2 = 7   I'm sure that's not the 
bottom price, but it's not too far out of whack either.   Figure-8 is also 
wicked heavy.  The spool weight will surprise you.     -- Original Message 
-- From: "Jason McKemie"  To: 
"af@afmug.com"  Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 
Small Scale PON    
Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft. It's way expensive, but no separate 
messenger strand.     -- Original Message -- From: "Jason McKemie" 
 To: "af@afmug.com"  Sent: 
3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON    
Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on the 12 strand figure-8? I've 
been using ADSS up to this point since I can get closer to the neutral with it, 
but figure-8 might work in some new deployment scenarios.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  Figure-8 drop.   Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would certainly be cost 
attractive, but I assumed it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are that far 
apart.     -- Original Message -- From: "Jason McKemie" 
 To: "af@afmug.com"  Sent: 
3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON    
Were you figuring on doing this lashed or just the flat drop cable? I've got a 
couple scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct flat drop, but the only way I 
can think of to get it in the air is by using wedge clamps. Not sure if these 
are good for the distance between some of the utility poles out there.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

I think the idea is you can run a 12 strand aerial cable down a rural road.  
Since you're using this skinny cable, you can use a $40 closure to put a PON 
coupler in front of the customer prem.

My quick estimate is the difference might be around $6,000 per mile.that 
changes with assumptions on how many houses are on that mile and so onmaybe 
$4k to $6k is fairer.

I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm looking at Alphion...the ONT is pretty 
close to a routerboard.  The OLT is a lot more than a mikrotik switch, but cost 
per customer port (assuming 1:16 PON) is on par with a mid grade switch.  It's 
more than mikrotik, less than Juniper.  I can't share numbers due to NDA, but 
that's the idea.

We're looking at doing a whole rural town with 50 miles of road and 300 
households.  I haven't gotten down to brass tacks yet, but on the surface it 
seems like the savings is enough to buy a really nice bucket truck.

-Adam

-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/27/2017 5:33:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON.  If you had 16 or 
more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON.
But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON.  If you do AE like Sterling I 
don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON.

With PON you still have to have a drop to each home.  The cost of  the cable is 
in the placement, not in the cable itself.
So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs where do you place the 
switch and SFPs.  Personally, I would do it Sterling style on new greenfield.  
The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive

Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

2017-03-31 Thread Josh Luthman

Awesome sauce, thanks!

Anyone have a recommendation for a VDSL dslam? =)


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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:19 PM,  wrote:

> VDSL modems are standards based and should work with other dslams.
>
> *From:* Josh Luthman
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 12:16 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] VDSL question
>
> I've had an old old old Zyxel VES 1000 dslam that I inherited from the
> building.  How interchangeable are dslam and vdsl modems?  I just pulled up
> my last spare and the replacement looks to be $1900 on ebay.
>
> All 12 ports are mode "10baseS".  They have various up/down rates.  I
> think we have Zyxel and SMC VDSL modems through out the customer base.
>
> Can I just get any VDSL dslam and expect it to work?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340 <(937)%20552-2340>
> Direct: 937-552-2343 <(937)%20552-2343>
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>

Re: [AFMUG] TowerCoverage.com

2017-03-31 Thread SmarterBroadband

TowerCoverage told my tech they are not adding any more default antennas.  We 
have to do our own.

 

We have the Ant files from Cambium.

 

I will check with my tech to see what the issue is.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TowerCoverage.com

 

They're just ANT (antenna) files.

 

Cambium has them for their antennas.  Your best bet is to ask TowerCoverage to 
request them from Cambium.




 

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

 

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:11 PM, SmarterBroadband  > wrote:

What do you mean?

They are not in the default list as far as I know.

Does Cambium have TowerCoverage ready files somewhere?

Thanks

Adam

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com  ] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] TowerCoverage.com

 

Cambium has all of their stuff for sure.




 

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

 

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Paul McCall  > wrote:

I am interested as well for the same stuff.

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com  ] On Behalf 
Of SmarterBroadband
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com  
Subject: [AFMUG] TowerCoverage.com

 

Before we reinvent the wheel.  Does anyone have TowerCoverage .ant antenna 
pattern files (ready to upload) for the following you are willing to share.

 

epmp 2000 5GHz sector Model #C050900D021A (with and without beam-forming)

 

450M 5 GHz integrated, beam-forming

 

450i 5 GHz integrated sector Model #C050045A006B

 

Also, nice to haves

 

MTI: MT-485005/VHN

 

e-PmP Force-110 Integrated Model #C058900P072A

 

e-PmP Force-180 Integrated Model #C058900P062A

 

BTW: We have the Cambium 900 MHz sector file if anyone needs it.

 

Thanks

 

Adam

Re: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem






One other thingI had a couple of anomalies go away when I switched 
OSPF interfaces from broadcast to point-to-point mode.  I thought the 
only difference was the OSFP messages are sent unicast, but a few goofy 
things stopped happening when I did that.




That’s something I hadn’t thought to try.

Would I need to do it on all interfaces involved? or just from Tower B 
to Tower A? (that’s where the issue seems to be, even though I can 
still reach the customer from Tower B, just not the NOC)


I started doing it just between sites that had problems. Lately I've 
been doing it everywhere.  Technically if it is a point to point link, 
then running OSPF in point to point mode would be the correct way 
anyway.  I think the problem that prompted me to try this waswas a 
router switching to using a higher cost path mysteriously and it would 
switch back to the lower cost path if I "kicked" it (reboot, flap 
interface, or similar).


Whenever I've had a problem like yours, it always ended up being that 
somebody wasn't receiving the route, or was filtering the route, or not 
installing the route.  There always ended up being a reason.though 
sometimes I beat my head against the wall for awhile before I found it.

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

2017-03-31 Thread Carlos Alcantar

ZTE is good with working with different vendor ont's




Carlos Alcantar

Race Communications / Race Team Member

1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010

Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: Af  on behalf of Trey Scarborough 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:21:52 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON


So you have confirmed it works with ZTE then I am guessing by this response. 
Good to know I have quite a few of those around to test until the ONUs are in 
stock again.

On 3/31/2017 1:21 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
It works...I guess if you are looking to manage it in their platform, that 
might be difficult, but all you need is a profile for it on the OLT.

Regards,
Chuck

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:07 PM, > 
wrote:
I would not expect any random ONT to have full functionality.  They might 
workish...

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

So, other ONTs will work? The beta store is sold out of the Ubiquiti ONTs every 
time I check.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other GPON equipment.  ZTE 
included.

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:
I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely not light stuff...


On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett 
 wrote:
1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing

2+2 = 7

I'm sure that's not the bottom price, but it's not too far out of whack either.

Figure-8 is also wicked heavy.  The spool weight will surprise you.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft.
It's way expensive, but no separate messenger strand.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on the 12 strand figure-8? I've 
been using ADSS up to this point since I can get closer to the neutral with it, 
but figure-8 might work in some new deployment scenarios.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
Figure-8 drop.

Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would certainly be cost attractive, but I assumed 
it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are that far apart.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Were you figuring on doing this lashed or just the flat drop cable? I've got a 
couple scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct flat drop, but the only way I 
can think of to get it in the air is by using wedge clamps. Not sure if these 
are good for the distance between some of the utility poles out there.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
I think the idea is you can run a 12 strand aerial cable down a rural road.  
Since you're using this skinny cable, you can use a $40 closure to put a PON 
coupler in front of the customer prem.

My quick estimate is the difference might be around $6,000 per mile.that 
changes with assumptions on how many houses are on that mile and so onmaybe 
$4k to $6k is fairer.

I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm looking at Alphion...the ONT is pretty 
close to a routerboard.  The OLT is a lot more than a mikrotik switch, but cost 
per customer port (assuming 1:16 PON) is on par with a mid grade switch.  It's 
more than mikrotik, less than Juniper.  I can't share numbers due to NDA, but 
that's the idea.

We're looking at doing a whole rural town with 50 miles of road and 300 
households.  I haven't gotten down to brass tacks yet, but on the surface it 
seems like the savings is enough to buy a really nice bucket truck.

-Adam


-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/27/2017 5:33:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON.  If you had 16 or 
more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON.
But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON.  If you do AE like Sterling I 
don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON.

With PON you still have to have a drop to each home.  The cost of  the cable is 
in the placement, not in the cable itself.

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

2017-03-31 Thread Trey Scarborough

So you have confirmed it works with ZTE then I am guessing by this 
response. Good to know I have quite a few of those around to test until 
the ONUs are in stock again.



On 3/31/2017 1:21 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
It works...I guess if you are looking to manage it in their platform, 
that might be difficult, but all you need is a profile for it on the OLT.


Regards,
Chuck

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:07 PM, > wrote:


I would not expect any random ONT to have full functionality. 
They might workish...

*From:* Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 11:56 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
So, other ONTs will work? The beta store is sold out of the
Ubiquiti ONTs every time I check.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other
GPON equipment.  ZTE included.
Regards,
Chuck
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie
 wrote:

I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely
not light stuff...


On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett
 wrote:

1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing
2+2 = 7
I'm sure that's not the bottom price, but it's not too
far out of whack either.
Figure-8 is also wicked heavy.  The spool weight will
surprise you.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett
 wrote:

The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft.
It's way expensive, but no separate messenger strand.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie"

To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on
the 12 strand figure-8? I've been using ADSS up
to this point since I can get closer to the
neutral with it, but figure-8 might work in some
new deployment scenarios.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett
 wrote:

Figure-8 drop.
Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would
certainly be cost attractive, but I assumed
it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are
that far apart.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie"

To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Were you figuring on doing this lashed or
just the flat drop cable? I've got a couple
scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct
flat drop, but the only way I can think of
to get it in the air is by using wedge
clamps. Not sure if these are good for the
distance between some of the utility poles
out there.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett
 wrote:

I think the idea is you can run a 12
strand aerial cable down a rural road. 
Since you're using this skinny cable,

you can use a $40 closure to put a PON
coupler in front of the customer prem.

My quick estimate is the difference
might be around $6,000 per
mile.that changes with assumptions
on how many houses are on that mile and
so onmaybe $4k to $6k is fairer.

I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm
looking at Alphion...the ONT is pretty
close

Re: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem

2017-03-31 Thread Justin Marshall

Is the customer connecting via PPPoE? That would generate a /32 route that is 
being advertised.

No.  There is a hotspot involved, but we’ve already tried bypassing that and no 
difference.

Any routing marks involved?  Any mangle or firewall rules which would match 
this customer and not others?

No

When you're saying "traceroute stops at", is that the site giving the last 
reply?

Yes

One other thingI had a couple of anomalies go away when I switched OSPF 
interfaces from broadcast to point-to-point mode.  I thought the only 
difference was the OSFP messages are sent unicast, but a few goofy things 
stopped happening when I did that.

That’s something I hadn’t thought to try.
Would I need to do it on all interfaces involved? or just from Tower B to Tower 
A? (that’s where the issue seems to be, even though I can still reach the 
customer from Tower B, just not the NOC)

Thanks,
Justin

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 1:34 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem

Is the customer connecting via PPPoE? That would generate a /32 route that is 
being advertised.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
Any routing marks involved?  Any mangle or firewall rules which would match 
this customer and not others?

When you're saying "traceroute stops at", is that the site giving the last 
reply?

What if you specify different source IP's on your traceroute from the NOC?  
Maybe tower A is missing one route, but not others.

One other thingI had a couple of anomalies go away when I switched OSPF 
interfaces from broadcast to point-to-point mode.  I thought the only 
difference was the OSFP messages are sent unicast, but a few goofy things 
stopped happening when I did that.


-- Original Message --
From: "Justin Marshall" >
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Sent: 3/31/2017 12:55:43 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem

Hi,

I have an odd situation with OSPF.

There are 2 towers (Tower A and Tower B) and a NOC involved that feeds both 
towers.
Tower A is directly connected to the NOC via Mikrotik Backhaul.  Tower B is 
directly connected to the NOC via Fiber.
Tower B is connected to Tower A via Fiber.

When tower A is running straight off the NOC (via Mikrotik Backhaul) everything 
works as it should.

We are trying to make a switchover to have Tower A run off Tower B so it will 
be a Fiber connection all the way to Tower A (through tower B) and eliminate 
the Mikrotik Backhaul.

When I change cost on the OSPF interfaces to make this happen, all customers 
work as they should and following the normal path to/from the Internet as 
expected.  However, for one of the customers on Tower A, traceroutes to that 
one customer stop at Tower A (through tower B) from the NOC.  Traceroutes 
towards the NOC, from the customer stops at Tower B.

All customers are on the same subnet.

I can directly ping the customer in question from both Tower B and Tower A (and 
the traffic is taking the correct path), but not from the NOC.  From the NOC 
all traffic stops at Tower B

The only real difference for the customer that is not working is they are using 
a Sonic Wall, and the other customers have Mikrotik routers behind the CPE's.  
We have tried elimating the sonc wall, and replacing it with a laptop for 
testing, and the traffic flow failed in the same way.

Tried all kinds of things and we are quite stumped.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks,
Justin
just...@pdmnet.net

[AFMUG] Heavy Equipment Sourcing

I've found a couple of LM42's that look like a good option, however they
both have the backhoe attachment - which I want, but I also would like the
trencher and boring attachments.

Has anyone found these separately?  My local Vermeer dealer claims they
rarely if ever see them separate from a machine.

-Jason

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I started reading the overturned order...19 pages in I realized there 
were 200 pages to go and I don't have time for it.


The privacy protections stated in the existing US Code section 222 
(https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222) seem clear and 
sufficient to me.  What additional protections would the overturned FCC 
order have provided consumers.  What additional burdens would it impose 
on ISP's?



-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/31/2017 2:21:37 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

This is the order that was overturned by Congress, and will go away if 
the President signs the CRA: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf


There are many more issues with this rule than the press is making 
noise about.  The rules would impose significant cost and liability on 
small providers.


WISPA signed onto a stay request with the FCC asking the agency to put 
implementation of the rules on hold while the issues with the new rule 
were address.   In supporting the stay request WISPA signed onto the 
letter from many other groups and stated that we would be requesting 
our members to support the below “Privacy Principals” while the stay 
was in effect.  The ‘stay’ request was granted by the FCC.


WISPA was not the driving force behind the “Congressional Review Act” 
that Congress used to overturn the rules this week.  I’m surprised that 
it passed.  I’m sure there was some serious lobbying from the large 
providers behind it’s passage.


The rules that Congress overturned were not the only rules that applied 
to Privacy from the FCC and, as others have pointed out, had never 
taken effect.   As ISP’s we are still under common carrier regulation 
and Section 222 “Privacy of Customer Information” applies.  
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222


These are the principals we are asking our members to follow:



ISP Privacy Principles

ISPs understand the trust our customers place in us, and we are 
committed to protecting our customers’ privacy and safeguarding their 
information. For 20 years, we have implemented policies and practices 
that are consistent with the FTC’s widely respected and effective 
privacy framework and other federal and state privacy laws. This 
framework helped drive the success of today’s Internet ecosystem by 
balancing consumer protection with the flexibility necessary to 
innovate. We understand the importance of maintaining our customers’ 
trust. That is why we will continue to provide consumer privacy 
protections, while at the same time meeting consumers’ expectations 
for innovative new product solutions to enhance their online 
experiences. Regardless of the legal status of the FCC’s broadband 
privacy rules, we remain committed to protecting our customers’ 
privacy and safeguarding their information because we value their 
trust. As policymakers evaluate the issues, we will maintain consumer 
protections that include the following:


Transparency. ISPs will continue to provide their broadband customers 
with a clear, comprehensible, accurate, and continuously available 
privacy notice that describes the customer information we collect, how 
we will use that information, and when we will share that information 
with third parties.


Consumer Choice. ISPs will continue to give broadband customers 
easy-to-understand privacy choices based on the sensitivity of their 
personal data and how it will be used or disclosed, consistent with 
the FTC’s privacy framework. In particular, ISPs will continue to: (i) 
follow the FTC’s guidance regarding opt-in consent for the use and 
sharing of sensitive information as defined by the FTC; (ii) offer an 
opt-out choice to use non-sensitive customer information for 
personalized third-party marketing; and (iii) rely on implied consent 
to use customer information in activities like service fulfillment and 
support, fraud prevention, market research, product development, 
network management and security, compliance with law, and first-party 
marketing. This is the same flexible choice approach used across the 
Internet ecosystem and is very familiar to consumers.


Data Security. ISPs will continue to take reasonable measures to 
protect customer information we collect from unauthorized use, 
disclosure, or access. Consistent with the FTC’s framework, precedent, 
and guidance, these measures will take into account the nature and 
scope of the ISP’s activities, the sensitivity of the data, the size 
of the ISP, and technical feasibility.


Data Breach Notifications. ISPs will continue to notify consumers of 
data breaches as appropriate, including complying with all applicable 
state data breach laws, which contain robust requirements to notify 
affected customers, regulators, law enforcement, and others, without 
unreasonable delay, when an unauthorized person acquires the 
customers’ sensitive personal information as defined in these

Re: [AFMUG] Google Maps

2017-03-31 Thread Jaime Solorza

Ha...

On Mar 31, 2017 12:20 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> Ms. Pacman.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jaime Solorza" 
> *To: *"Animal Farm" 
> *Sent: *Friday, March 31, 2017 1:13:35 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Google Maps
>
> What is supposed to happen?
>
> On Mar 31, 2017 12:01 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> maps.google.com  Check it out.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

2017-03-31 Thread Mark Radabaugh

This is the order that was overturned by Congress, and will go away if the 
President signs the CRA: 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-148A1.pdf 


There are many more issues with this rule than the press is making noise about. 
 The rules would impose significant cost and liability on small providers.

WISPA signed onto a stay request with the FCC asking the agency to put 
implementation of the rules on hold while the issues with the new rule were 
address.   In supporting the stay request WISPA signed onto the letter from 
many other groups and stated that we would be requesting our members to support 
the below “Privacy Principals” while the stay was in effect.  The ‘stay’ 
request was granted by the FCC.

WISPA was not the driving force behind the “Congressional Review Act” that 
Congress used to overturn the rules this week.  I’m surprised that it passed.  
I’m sure there was some serious lobbying from the large providers behind it’s 
passage.

The rules that Congress overturned were not the only rules that applied to 
Privacy from the FCC and, as others have pointed out, had never taken effect.   
As ISP’s we are still under common carrier regulation and Section 222 “Privacy 
of Customer Information” applies.  
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/222 
   

These are the principals we are asking our members to follow:


ISP Privacy Principles

ISPs understand the trust our customers place in us, and we are committed to 
protecting our customers’ privacy and safeguarding their information. For 20 
years, we have implemented policies and practices that are consistent with the 
FTC’s widely respected and effective privacy framework and other federal and 
state privacy laws. This framework helped drive the success of today’s Internet 
ecosystem by balancing consumer protection with the flexibility necessary to 
innovate. We understand the importance of maintaining our customers’ trust. 
That is why we will continue to provide consumer privacy protections, while at 
the same time meeting consumers’ expectations for innovative new product 
solutions to enhance their online experiences. Regardless of the legal status 
of the FCC’s broadband privacy rules, we remain committed to protecting our 
customers’ privacy and safeguarding their information because we value their 
trust. As policymakers evaluate the issues, we will maintain consumer 
protections that include the following:

Transparency. ISPs will continue to provide their broadband customers with a 
clear, comprehensible, accurate, and continuously available privacy notice that 
describes the customer information we collect, how we will use that 
information, and when we will share that information with third parties.

Consumer Choice. ISPs will continue to give broadband customers 
easy-to-understand privacy choices based on the sensitivity of their personal 
data and how it will be used or disclosed, consistent with the FTC’s privacy 
framework. In particular, ISPs will continue to: (i) follow the FTC’s guidance 
regarding opt-in consent for the use and sharing of sensitive information as 
defined by the FTC; (ii) offer an opt-out choice to use non-sensitive customer 
information for personalized third-party marketing; and (iii) rely on implied 
consent to use customer information in activities like service fulfillment and 
support, fraud prevention, market research, product development, network 
management and security, compliance with law, and first-party marketing. This 
is the same flexible choice approach used across the Internet ecosystem and is 
very familiar to consumers.

Data Security. ISPs will continue to take reasonable measures to protect 
customer information we collect from unauthorized use, disclosure, or access. 
Consistent with the FTC’s framework, precedent, and guidance, these measures 
will take into account the nature and scope of the ISP’s activities, the 
sensitivity of the data, the size of the ISP, and technical feasibility.

Data Breach Notifications. ISPs will continue to notify consumers of data 
breaches as appropriate, including complying with all applicable state data 
breach laws, which contain robust requirements to notify affected customers, 
regulators, law enforcement, and others, without unreasonable delay, when an 
unauthorized person acquires the customers’ sensitive personal information as 
defined in these laws.

These principles are consistent with the FTC’s privacy framework, which has 
proved to be a successful privacy regime for many years and which continues to 
apply to non-ISPs, including social media networks, operating systems, search 
engines, browsers, and other edge providers that collect and use the same 
online data as ISPs. That framework has protected consumers’ privacy while 
fostering unprecedented investment and innovation. The principles are also

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

2017-03-31 Thread Chuck Hogg

It works...I guess if you are looking to manage it in their platform, that
might be difficult, but all you need is a profile for it on the OLT.

Regards,
Chuck

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:07 PM,  wrote:

> I would not expect any random ONT to have full functionality.  They might
> workish...
>
> *From:* Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 11:56 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>
> So, other ONTs will work? The beta store is sold out of the Ubiquiti ONTs
> every time I check.
>
> On Friday, March 31, 2017, Chuck Hogg  wrote:
>
>> The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other GPON
>> equipment.  ZTE included.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely not light
>>> stuff...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett <
>>> javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dmmoff...@gmail.com');> wrote:
>>>
 1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing

 2+2 = 7

 I'm sure that's not the bottom price, but it's not too far out of whack
 either.

 Figure-8 is also wicked heavy.  The spool weight will surprise you.


 -- Original Message --
 From: "Jason McKemie" 
 To: "af@afmug.com" 
 Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON


 Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.

 On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft.
> It's way expensive, but no separate messenger strand.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jason McKemie" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>
>
> Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on the 12 strand
> figure-8? I've been using ADSS up to this point since I can get closer to
> the neutral with it, but figure-8 might work in some new deployment
> scenarios.
>
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> Figure-8 drop.
>>
>> Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would certainly be cost attractive, but
>> I assumed it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are that far apart.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Jason McKemie" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: 3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>
>>
>> Were you figuring on doing this lashed or just the flat drop cable?
>> I've got a couple scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct flat drop, 
>> but
>> the only way I can think of to get it in the air is by using wedge 
>> clamps.
>> Not sure if these are good for the distance between some of the utility
>> poles out there.
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the idea is you can run a 12 strand aerial cable down a
>>> rural road.  Since you're using this skinny cable, you can use a $40
>>> closure to put a PON coupler in front of the customer prem.
>>>
>>> My quick estimate is the difference might be around $6,000 per
>>> mile.that changes with assumptions on how many houses are on that 
>>> mile
>>> and so onmaybe $4k to $6k is fairer.
>>>
>>> I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm looking at Alphion...the ONT
>>> is pretty close to a routerboard.  The OLT is a lot more than a mikrotik
>>> switch, but cost per customer port (assuming 1:16 PON) is on par with a 
>>> mid
>>> grade switch.  It's more than mikrotik, less than Juniper.  I can't 
>>> share
>>> numbers due to NDA, but that's the idea.
>>>
>>> We're looking at doing a whole rural town with 50 miles of road and
>>> 300 households.  I haven't gotten down to brass tacks yet, but on the
>>> surface it seems like the savings is enough to buy a really nice bucket
>>> truck.
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: 3/27/2017 5:33:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>>
>>> Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON.  If you
 had 16 or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the 
 PON.
 But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON.  If you do AE like
 Sterling I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix 
 PON.

 With PON you still have to have a drop to each home.  The cost of
 the cable is

Re: [AFMUG] Google Maps

Ms. Pacman. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jaime Solorza"  
To: "Animal Farm"  
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 1:13:35 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Google Maps 


What is supposed to happen? 


On Mar 31, 2017 12:01 PM, "Mike Hammett" < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




maps.google.com Check it out. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP

Re: [AFMUG] VDSL question

VDSL modems are standards based and should work with other dslams.  

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:16 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] VDSL question

I've had an old old old Zyxel VES 1000 dslam that I inherited from the 
building.  How interchangeable are dslam and vdsl modems?  I just pulled up my 
last spare and the replacement looks to be $1900 on ebay. 

All 12 ports are mode "10baseS".  They have various up/down rates.  I think we 
have Zyxel and SMC VDSL modems through out the customer base.

Can I just get any VDSL dslam and expect it to work?

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

[AFMUG] VDSL question

2017-03-31 Thread Josh Luthman

I've had an old old old Zyxel VES 1000 dslam that I inherited from the
building.  How interchangeable are dslam and vdsl modems?  I just pulled up
my last spare and the replacement looks to be $1900 on ebay.

All 12 ports are mode "10baseS".  They have various up/down rates.  I think
we have Zyxel and SMC VDSL modems through out the customer base.

Can I just get any VDSL dslam and expect it to work?

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

Re: [AFMUG] Google Maps

2017-03-31 Thread Jaime Solorza

What is supposed to happen?

On Mar 31, 2017 12:01 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> maps.google.com  Check it out.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

I would not expect any random ONT to have full functionality.  They might 
workish...

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:56 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

So, other ONTs will work? The beta store is sold out of the Ubiquiti ONTs every 
time I check.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

  The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other GPON equipment.  
ZTE included.

  Regards,
  Chuck

  On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:

I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely not light stuff... 

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett 
 wrote:

  1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing

  2+2 = 7

  I'm sure that's not the bottom price, but it's not too far out of whack 
either.

  Figure-8 is also wicked heavy.  The spool weight will surprise you.

  -- Original Message --
  From: "Jason McKemie" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

  The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft.
  It's way expensive, but no separate messenger strand.

  -- Original Message --
  From: "Jason McKemie" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Sent: 3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on the 12 strand 
figure-8? I've been using ADSS up to this point since I can get closer to the 
neutral with it, but figure-8 might work in some new deployment scenarios.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

  Figure-8 drop.

  Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would certainly be cost attractive, 
but I assumed it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are that far apart.

  -- Original Message --
  From: "Jason McKemie" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Sent: 3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Were you figuring on doing this lashed or just the flat drop 
cable? I've got a couple scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct flat drop, 
but the only way I can think of to get it in the air is by using wedge clamps. 
Not sure if these are good for the distance between some of the utility poles 
out there.

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett 
 wrote:

  I think the idea is you can run a 12 strand aerial cable down 
a rural road.  Since you're using this skinny cable, you can use a $40 closure 
to put a PON coupler in front of the customer prem.

  My quick estimate is the difference might be around $6,000 
per mile.that changes with assumptions on how many houses are on that mile 
and so onmaybe $4k to $6k is fairer.

  I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm looking at 
Alphion...the ONT is pretty close to a routerboard.  The OLT is a lot more than 
a mikrotik switch, but cost per customer port (assuming 1:16 PON) is on par 
with a mid grade switch.  It's more than mikrotik, less than Juniper.  I can't 
share numbers due to NDA, but that's the idea.

  We're looking at doing a whole rural town with 50 miles of 
road and 300 households.  I haven't gotten down to brass tacks yet, but on the 
surface it seems like the savings is enough to buy a really nice bucket truck.

  -Adam

  -- Original Message --
  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: 3/27/2017 5:33:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON.  
If you had 16 or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the 
PON.
But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON.  If you do AE 
like Sterling I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON.

With PON you still have to have a drop to each home.  The 
cost of  the cable is in the placement, not in the cable itself.
So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs 
where do you place the switch and SFPs.  Personally, I would do it Sterling 
style on new greenfield.  The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive PON is we 
are a regulated common carrier with provider of last resort obligations.  I 
have to give POTS that is battery backed up, legally

Re: [AFMUG] Google Maps

2017-03-31 Thread David Coudron

Already wasted 10 minutes of my day…. 

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 
612-991-7474

Advantenon, Inc. [cid:image001.png@01CEE562.60FF8FC0] 
   
[cid:image002.png@01CEE562.60FF8FC0]    
[cid:image003.png@01CEE562.60FF8FC0]    
[cid:image004.png@01CEE562.60FF8FC0] 
i...@advantenon.com  |  3500 Vicksburg Lane N, 
Suite 315, Plymouth, MN 55447  |  
www.advantenon.com  |  Phone: 800-704-4720  |  
Local: 612-454-1545

[cid:image010.jpg@01D2AA1F.613D6F90]

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 1:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Google Maps

maps.google.com  Check it out.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]

[AFMUG] Google Maps

maps.google.com Check it out. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

So, other ONTs will work? The beta store is sold out of the Ubiquiti ONTs
every time I check.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Chuck Hogg  wrote:

> The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other GPON
> equipment.  ZTE included.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely not light stuff...
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett > > wrote:
>>
>>> 1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing
>>>
>>> 2+2 = 7
>>>
>>> I'm sure that's not the bottom price, but it's not too far out of whack
>>> either.
>>>
>>> Figure-8 is also wicked heavy.  The spool weight will surprise you.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Jason McKemie" 
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>>
>>> Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>>
 The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft.
 It's way expensive, but no separate messenger strand.


 -- Original Message --
 From: "Jason McKemie" 
 To: "af@afmug.com" 
 Sent: 3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

 Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on the 12 strand figure-8?
 I've been using ADSS up to this point since I can get closer to the neutral
 with it, but figure-8 might work in some new deployment scenarios.

 On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Figure-8 drop.
>
> Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would certainly be cost attractive, but
> I assumed it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are that far apart.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jason McKemie" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>
> Were you figuring on doing this lashed or just the flat drop cable?
> I've got a couple scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct flat drop, 
> but
> the only way I can think of to get it in the air is by using wedge clamps.
> Not sure if these are good for the distance between some of the utility
> poles out there.
>
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> I think the idea is you can run a 12 strand aerial cable down a rural
>> road.  Since you're using this skinny cable, you can use a $40 closure to
>> put a PON coupler in front of the customer prem.
>>
>> My quick estimate is the difference might be around $6,000 per
>> mile.that changes with assumptions on how many houses are on that 
>> mile
>> and so onmaybe $4k to $6k is fairer.
>>
>> I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm looking at Alphion...the ONT is
>> pretty close to a routerboard.  The OLT is a lot more than a mikrotik
>> switch, but cost per customer port (assuming 1:16 PON) is on par with a 
>> mid
>> grade switch.  It's more than mikrotik, less than Juniper.  I can't share
>> numbers due to NDA, but that's the idea.
>>
>> We're looking at doing a whole rural town with 50 miles of road and
>> 300 households.  I haven't gotten down to brass tacks yet, but on the
>> surface it seems like the savings is enough to buy a really nice bucket
>> truck.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: 3/27/2017 5:33:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>
>> Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON.  If you had
>>> 16 or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON.
>>> But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON.  If you do AE like
>>> Sterling I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON.
>>>
>>> With PON you still have to have a drop to each home.  The cost of
>>> the cable is in the placement, not in the cable itself.
>>> So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs where do you
>>> place the switch and SFPs.  Personally, I would do it Sterling style on 
>>> new
>>> greenfield.  The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive PON is we are a
>>> regulated common carrier with provider of last resort obligations.  I 
>>> have
>>> to give POTS that is battery backed up, legally required to do this.
>>>
>>> Cannot risk a 911 call not going through due to a power outage

Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

2017-03-31 Thread Chuck Hogg

The UBNT equipment is plain GPON standard.  Works on other GPON equipment.
ZTE included.

Regards,
Chuck

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> I've got a couple reels of 3/8" steel cable. Definitely not light stuff...
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> 1/4" steel cable + drop cable + jacketing
>>
>> 2+2 = 7
>>
>> I'm sure that's not the bottom price, but it's not too far out of whack
>> either.
>>
>> Figure-8 is also wicked heavy.  The spool weight will surprise you.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Jason McKemie" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: 3/29/2017 1:01:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>
>> Yikes, I've bought 72 strand ADSS for less than that.
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>>> The most recent quote I got was $0.83/ft.
>>> It's way expensive, but no separate messenger strand.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Jason McKemie" 
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Sent: 3/29/2017 11:54:27 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>>
>>> Gotcha. What sort of pricing are you getting on the 12 strand figure-8?
>>> I've been using ADSS up to this point since I can get closer to the neutral
>>> with it, but figure-8 might work in some new deployment scenarios.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>>
 Figure-8 drop.

 Flat drop cable at $0.16/foot would certainly be cost attractive, but I
 assumed it can't go 500' aerialsome poles are that far apart.


 -- Original Message --
 From: "Jason McKemie" 
 To: "af@afmug.com" 
 Sent: 3/29/2017 11:35:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON

 Were you figuring on doing this lashed or just the flat drop cable?
 I've got a couple scenarios that I was looking at using 12ct flat drop, but
 the only way I can think of to get it in the air is by using wedge clamps.
 Not sure if these are good for the distance between some of the utility
 poles out there.

 On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> I think the idea is you can run a 12 strand aerial cable down a rural
> road.  Since you're using this skinny cable, you can use a $40 closure to
> put a PON coupler in front of the customer prem.
>
> My quick estimate is the difference might be around $6,000 per
> mile.that changes with assumptions on how many houses are on that mile
> and so onmaybe $4k to $6k is fairer.
>
> I don't have pricing from Calix.  I'm looking at Alphion...the ONT is
> pretty close to a routerboard.  The OLT is a lot more than a mikrotik
> switch, but cost per customer port (assuming 1:16 PON) is on par with a 
> mid
> grade switch.  It's more than mikrotik, less than Juniper.  I can't share
> numbers due to NDA, but that's the idea.
>
> We're looking at doing a whole rural town with 50 miles of road and
> 300 households.  I haven't gotten down to brass tacks yet, but on the
> surface it seems like the savings is enough to buy a really nice bucket
> truck.
>
> -Adam
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 3/27/2017 5:33:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>
> Years ago, there was a break even point on active vs PON.  If you had
>> 16 or more in an area that could take a PON it was worth doing the PON.
>> But that was comparing Calix AE vs Calix PON.  If you do AE like
>> Sterling I don't think PON is ever cost effective compared to Calix PON.
>>
>> With PON you still have to have a drop to each home.  The cost of
>> the cable is in the placement, not in the cable itself.
>> So the question is, where do you place the splitter vs where do you
>> place the switch and SFPs.  Personally, I would do it Sterling style on 
>> new
>> greenfield.  The ONLY reason I do it with the expensive PON is we are a
>> regulated common carrier with provider of last resort obligations.  I 
>> have
>> to give POTS that is battery backed up, legally required to do this.
>>
>> Cannot risk a 911 call not going through due to a power outage etc.
>> Cannot trust the customer to not unplug a UPS.
>>
>> -Original Message- From: Adam Moffett
>> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 3:11 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Small Scale PON
>>
>> Yeah, so PON vs AE was actually the next research project for me to
>> tackle.
>>
>> It seems like there ought to be savings with PON because of lower
>> fiber
>>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I'm always in favor of letting the big guys hang themselves. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:48:27 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

I'd agree with this. Anything greedy that the big guys do (even from only a 
perception standpoint) is good for us. It's a great marketing tool. So long as 
they don't figure a way to force anything on all of us. 

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Mathew Howard < mhoward...@gmail.com > wrote: 





Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread 
here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling information 
that's stuck all over the news. 
Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can tell, 
it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several customers 
worried that we're going to sell there information, and being able to tell them 
that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good selling point to those 
people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going to sell that info may be 
because we don't have it, and we're too small for anybody to want it even if we 
did, but that's beside the point. 

As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite what 
you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from how it 
always has been. 



On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie < 
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com > wrote: 



This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories involved. 


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > wrote: 





One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill. They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years. Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that. I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important. 

Rory 




From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market? 


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



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights. Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds. 



Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage. 

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user. 

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

Re: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem

2017-03-31 Thread can...@believewireless.net

Is the customer connecting via PPPoE? That would generate a /32 route that
is being advertised.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Any routing marks involved?  Any mangle or firewall rules which would
> match this customer and not others?
>
> When you're saying "traceroute stops at", is that the site giving the last
> reply?
>
> What if you specify different source IP's on your traceroute from the
> NOC?  Maybe tower A is missing one route, but not others.
>
> One other thingI had a couple of anomalies go away when I switched
> OSPF interfaces from broadcast to point-to-point mode.  I thought the only
> difference was the OSFP messages are sent unicast, but a few goofy things
> stopped happening when I did that.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Justin Marshall" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 3/31/2017 12:55:43 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have an odd situation with OSPF.
>
>
>
> There are 2 towers (Tower A and Tower B) and a NOC involved that feeds
> both towers.
>
> Tower A is directly connected to the NOC via Mikrotik Backhaul.  Tower B
> is directly connected to the NOC via *Fiber.*
>
> Tower B is connected to Tower A via *Fiber.*
>
>
>
> When tower A is running straight off the NOC (via Mikrotik Backhaul)
> everything works as it should.
>
>
>
> We are trying to make a switchover to have Tower A run off Tower B so it
> will be a Fiber connection all the way to Tower A (through tower B) and
> eliminate the Mikrotik Backhaul.
>
>
>
> When I change cost on the OSPF interfaces to make this happen, all
> customers work as they should and following the normal path to/from the
> Internet as expected.  However, for one of the customers on Tower A,
> traceroutes to that one customer stop at Tower A (through tower B) from the
> NOC.  Traceroutes towards the NOC, from the customer stops at Tower B.
>
>
>
> All customers are on the same subnet.
>
>
>
> I can directly ping the customer in question from both Tower B and Tower A
> (and the traffic is taking the correct path), but not from the NOC.  From
> the NOC all traffic stops at Tower B
>
>
>
> The only real difference for the customer that is not working is they are
> using a Sonic Wall, and the other customers have Mikrotik routers behind
> the CPE's.  We have tried elimating the sonc wall, and replacing it with a
> laptop for testing, and the traffic flow failed in the same way.
>
>
>
> Tried all kinds of things and we are quite stumped.
>
>
>
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Justin
>
> just...@pdmnet.net
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem

Any routing marks involved?  Any mangle or firewall rules which would 
match this customer and not others?


When you're saying "traceroute stops at", is that the site giving the 
last reply?


What if you specify different source IP's on your traceroute from the 
NOC?  Maybe tower A is missing one route, but not others.


One other thingI had a couple of anomalies go away when I switched 
OSPF interfaces from broadcast to point-to-point mode.  I thought the 
only difference was the OSFP messages are sent unicast, but a few goofy 
things stopped happening when I did that.



-- Original Message --
From: "Justin Marshall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/31/2017 12:55:43 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem


Hi,



I have an odd situation with OSPF.



There are 2 towers (Tower A and Tower B) and a NOC involved that feeds 
both towers.


Tower A is directly connected to the NOC via Mikrotik Backhaul.  Tower 
B is directly connected to the NOC via Fiber.


Tower B is connected to Tower A via Fiber.



When tower A is running straight off the NOC (via Mikrotik Backhaul) 
everything works as it should.




We are trying to make a switchover to have Tower A run off Tower B so 
it will be a Fiber connection all the way to Tower A (through tower B) 
and eliminate the Mikrotik Backhaul.




When I change cost on the OSPF interfaces to make this happen, all 
customers work as they should and following the normal path to/from the 
Internet as expected.  However, for one of the customers on Tower A, 
traceroutes to that one customer stop at Tower A (through tower B) from 
the NOC.  Traceroutes towards the NOC, from the customer stops at Tower 
B.




All customers are on the same subnet.



I can directly ping the customer in question from both Tower B and 
Tower A (and the traffic is taking the correct path), but not from the 
NOC.  From the NOC all traffic stops at Tower B




The only real difference for the customer that is not working is they 
are using a Sonic Wall, and the other customers have Mikrotik routers 
behind the CPE's.  We have tried elimating the sonc wall, and replacing 
it with a laptop for testing, and the traffic flow failed in the same 
way.




Tried all kinds of things and we are quite stumped.



Anyone have any suggestions?



Thanks,

Justin

just...@pdmnet.net

[AFMUG] Strange OSPF problem

2017-03-31 Thread Justin Marshall

Hi,

I have an odd situation with OSPF.

There are 2 towers (Tower A and Tower B) and a NOC involved that feeds both 
towers.
Tower A is directly connected to the NOC via Mikrotik Backhaul.  Tower B is 
directly connected to the NOC via Fiber.
Tower B is connected to Tower A via Fiber.

When tower A is running straight off the NOC (via Mikrotik Backhaul) everything 
works as it should.

We are trying to make a switchover to have Tower A run off Tower B so it will 
be a Fiber connection all the way to Tower A (through tower B) and eliminate 
the Mikrotik Backhaul.

When I change cost on the OSPF interfaces to make this happen, all customers 
work as they should and following the normal path to/from the Internet as 
expected.  However, for one of the customers on Tower A, traceroutes to that 
one customer stop at Tower A (through tower B) from the NOC.  Traceroutes 
towards the NOC, from the customer stops at Tower B.

All customers are on the same subnet.

I can directly ping the customer in question from both Tower B and Tower A (and 
the traffic is taking the correct path), but not from the NOC.  From the NOC 
all traffic stops at Tower B

The only real difference for the customer that is not working is they are using 
a Sonic Wall, and the other customers have Mikrotik routers behind the CPE's.  
We have tried elimating the sonc wall, and replacing it with a laptop for 
testing, and the traffic flow failed in the same way.

Tried all kinds of things and we are quite stumped.

Anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks,
Justin
just...@pdmnet.net

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I'd agree with this. Anything greedy that the big guys do (even from only a
perception standpoint) is good for us. It's a great marketing tool. So long
as they don't figure a way to force anything on all of us.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Mathew Howard  wrote:

> Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread
> here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling
> information that's stuck all over the news.
> Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can
> tell, it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several
> customers worried that we're going to sell there information, and being
> able to tell them that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good
> selling point to those people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going
> to sell that info may be because we don't have it, and we're too small for
> anybody to want it even if we did, but that's beside the point.
>
> As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite
> what you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from
> how it always has been.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
> > wrote:
>
>> This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories
>> involved.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway > > wrote:
>>
>>> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
>>> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
>>> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
>>> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
>>> having access to that data as being important.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Peter
>>> Kranz
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
>>> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
>>> to use the only ISP in their market?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
>>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Rory
>>> Conaway
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
>>> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
>>> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
>>> crossed their minds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rory
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
>>> ] *On Behalf Of *Peter
>>> Kranz
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com 
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
>>> Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been
>>> perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I
>>> think the basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding
>>> pledge that small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate
>>> one of the clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to
>>> commodify every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
>>> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
>>> end user.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
>>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Over the course of my career, I do not recall failures due to high temps but 
many due to low temps.  

From: Trey Scarborough 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Forrest,

I think this is a great idea and would be one of the first to want some. If 
you could just run power and fiber up and get sync/power and fiber conversion 
in one unit it would simplify things greatly. I have been looking in to some of 
the gigabit sfp conversion as well for a different fiber device that I am 
trying to cobble together.  I have found some that I have torn apart there are 
the Mikrotik and UBNT ones that seem to probably be more complicated than what 
you are looking for.  Here is a list of ones I have used.

BB-elec industrial have these in black metal boxes in West Texas  with no 
cooling and never had an issue.

http://www.bb-elec.com/Products/Ethernet-Media-Converters/Unmanaged-Media-Converters/IE-Giga-MiniMc-LFPT.aspx

Transition networks

https://www.transition.com/products/media-converters/mge-psw-sfp-01/

and some new ones I have started to play with 

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/SFP-Gigabit-Fiber-Optical-Media-Converter-Board-SFP-1000Mbps-Media-Conerter-Gigabit-Fiber-Transceiver-Board/32715964991.html

Trey

On 3/31/2017 10:46 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

  They want a stand per radio,  with a fiber to universal poe converter on each 
strand.  That way all of their switchgear can be at the bottom.   If you 
replace all of the Lan ports in a syncinjector with sfp ports, then you get the 
idea.  

  I can think of lots of other ways to make this work,  enough that I wouldn't 
be inclined to build this except that this is definitely a recurring theme.  I 
think that the idea is that they really want to limit the quantity of gear at 
the top.  If it was me, I'd put either a poe switch up top or a bunch of those 
ubnt fiber to poe converters, but apparently there are quite a few wisps who 
don't like this idea. 

  On Mar 31, 2017 8:27 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector there?   
“the non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, unless you are saying 
that every POE port has a corresponding fiber port that would mate with a fiber 
strand coming down the tower and have a router with a bunch of SFPs to match.

The S16 is a good model, just add Sync.  Extremely simple.  No fiber 
terminations at the top.  (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way to not 
have to do the tower top terminations)  The next models of 16 will have 
additional SFP ports.  I assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is when the additional 
SFPs would appear on the S16 type device.

VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task.  

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand 
cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate 
the cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers to their 
radios.   I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a 
common desire. 

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection 
and sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just 
doing a switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was 
unacceptable. 

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever 
see the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

  Forrest, 

  For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT 
S16s up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

  Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN 
APs in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  
If we have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off 
the same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being 
used (with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.   

  So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some 
form of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

  Paul

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian 
(List Account)
  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
  To: af 
  Subject: Re:

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Trey Scarborough

Forrest,

I think this is a great idea and would be one of the first to want
some. If you could just run power and fiber up and get sync/power and
fiber conversion in one unit it would simplify things greatly. I have
been looking in to some of the gigabit sfp conversion as well for a
different fiber device that I am trying to cobble together. I have
found some that I have torn apart there are the Mikrotik and UBNT ones
that seem to probably be more complicated than what you are looking
for. Here is a list of ones I have used.

BB-elec industrial have these in black metal boxes in West Texas with no
cooling and never had an issue.

http://www.bb-elec.com/Products/Ethernet-Media-Converters/Unmanaged-Media-Converters/IE-Giga-MiniMc-LFPT.aspx

Transition networks

https://www.transition.com/products/media-converters/mge-psw-sfp-01/

and some new ones I have started to play with

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/SFP-Gigabit-Fiber-Optical-Media-Converter-Board-SFP-1000Mbps-Media-Conerter-Gigabit-Fiber-Transceiver-Board/32715964991.html

Trey

On 3/31/2017 10:46 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
They want a stand per radio, with a fiber to universal poe converter
on each strand. That way all of their switchgear can be at the
bottom. If you replace all of the Lan ports in a syncinjector with
sfp ports, then you get the idea.

I can think of lots of other ways to make this work, enough that I
wouldn't be inclined to build this except that this is definitely a
recurring theme. I think that the idea is that they really want to
limit the quantity of gear at the top. If it was me, I'd put either a
poe switch up top or a bunch of those ubnt fiber to poe converters,
but apparently there are quite a few wisps who don't like this idea.

On Mar 31, 2017 8:27 AM, "Paul McCall" > wrote:

How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector
there? “the non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere,
unless you are saying that every POE port has a corresponding
fiber port that would mate with a fiber strand coming down the
tower and have a router with a bunch of SFPs to match.

The S16 is a good model, just add Sync. Extremely simple. No
fiber terminations at the top. (we use MST’s which are a cheap
reliable way to not have to do the tower top terminations) The
next models of 16 will have additional SFP ports. I assume when
UBNT APs have SFPs is when the additional SFPs would appear on the
S16 type device.

VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task.

Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian
(List Account)
*Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
*To:* af >
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a
multistrand cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the
top which they terminate the cable into, hook up power to it, and
then run short jumpers to their radios. I've heard this from
enough different customers that it seems like a common desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power
injection and sync, with remote control and not much more. When
quizzed about just doing a switch and an injector up top, they all
expressed how this was unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability. I'm not sure if this
will ever see the light of day, a lot depends on the amount of
R required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" > wrote:

Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower,
we run UBNT S16s up there which is simple and working well,
and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for
devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 25 320s,
and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.
We VLAN APs in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and

bring it down the fiber. If we have other devices with fiber,
we bring them down on their own fiber (off the same MST). Of
course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy
a media converter for just to isolate the electrical
connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to
be some form of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Forrest
Christian (List Account)
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Totally true, it never took effect, so nothing changes.  Folks love it when the 
sky is falling.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:50 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread 
here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling information 
that's stuck all over the news. 

Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can tell, 
it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several customers 
worried that we're going to sell there information, and being able to tell them 
that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good selling point to those 
people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going to sell that info may be 
because we don't have it, and we're too small for anybody to want it even if we 
did, but that's beside the point.

As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite what 
you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from how it 
always has been.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:

  This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories involved.

  On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting 
this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and 
search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company 
specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having 
access to that data as being important.

Rory 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

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

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google 
has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  
Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband 
and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to 
try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end 
user.

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

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Trey Scarborough


Me three!


On 3/31/2017 10:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I know a guy that wants that too.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Josh Luthman" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, March 31, 2017 10:16:28 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I really really really really really want every radio to do SFP and DC.


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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
> wrote:


What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a
multistrand cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the
top which they terminate the cable into, hook up power to it,  and
then run short jumpers to their radios.   I've heard this from
enough different customers that it seems like a common desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power
injection and sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When
quizzed about just doing a switch and an injector up top, they all
expressed how this was unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this
will ever see the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of
R required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" > wrote:

Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower,
we run UBNT S16s up there which is simple and working well,
and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for
devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 25  320s,
and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE. 
We VLAN APs in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and

bring it down the fiber.  If we have other devices with fiber,
we bring them down on their own fiber (off the same MST).  Of
course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy
a media converter for just to isolate the electrical
connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to
be some form of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Forrest
Christian (List Account)
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
*To:* af >
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use
chipset.  But only available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do
this type of stuff.  I want to avoid switches since I want
this as transparent as possible,  but I might end up having to
go there.  I have another secret weapon in my arsenal but I'm
hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and
software takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" > wrote:

I looked at doing media converters last year. Not trivial.

*From:*Forrest Christian (List Account)

*Sent:*Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM

*To:*af

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to
simplify the fiber up the tower with syncronized radios at
the top..  Think a multiport ubiquiti fiberpoe with sync
over power and a gps receiver built in, along with
tower-top management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want
as little as possible up there, and I'd rather keep the
whole thing as simple as possible - I'd rather just use a
copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

It's really a shame these companies keep coming out with new radios without 
SFPs. They full well knew that we wanted it before they even started 
development of it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:39:08 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 




Yeah, Cambium are you listening? Disruptive category killer here. 




From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:16 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I really really really really really want every radio to do SFP and DC. 





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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it, and then run short jumpers to their radios. 
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire. 

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync, with remote control and not much more. When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 

At this point I'm looking at feasability. I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day, a lot depends on the amount of R required. 


On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 





Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 
25 320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox. 

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE. We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber. If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST). Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router. 

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset. But only 
available in commercial temperature range. 



Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff. 
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible, but I 
might end up having to go there. I have another secret weapon in my arsenal but 
I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time. 



On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 








I looked at doing media converters last year. Not trivial. 






From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM 

To: af 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 




Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 



I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top.. Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management. 



I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating. So I need to tear some more of the units apart to 
figure out what chipsets are available. 



-forrest 






On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 




RB260. 

Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of. That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for. 





-- Original Message -- 

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 

To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 

Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM 

Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 






I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes. Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments. 



What is everyone using? 









-- 






Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. 

Tel:

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I know a guy that wants that too. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:16:28 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I really really really really really want every radio to do SFP and DC. 






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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it, and then run short jumpers to their radios. 
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire. 


They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync, with remote control and not much more. When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 


At this point I'm looking at feasability. I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day, a lot depends on the amount of R required. 


On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 





Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 
25 320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox. 

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE. We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber. If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST). Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router. 

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset. But only 
available in commercial temperature range. 



Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff. 
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible, but I 
might end up having to go there. I have another secret weapon in my arsenal but 
I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time. 



On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 








I looked at doing media converters last year. Not trivial. 






From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM 

To: af 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 




Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 



I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top.. Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management. 



I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating. So I need to tear some more of the units apart to 
figure out what chipsets are available. 



-forrest 






On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 




RB260. 

Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of. That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for. 





-- Original Message -- 

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 

To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 

Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM 

Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 






I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes. Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments. 



What is everyone using? 









-- 






Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. 

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

2017-03-31 Thread Mathew Howard

Somebody posted the link to the WISPA filing on this in the other thread
here... there is more going on here than the stuff about selling
information that's stuck all over the news.
Maybe it is a big corporate handout, in some ways, but as far as I can
tell, it's good for the likes of us in every way. We've already had several
customers worried that we're going to sell there information, and being
able to tell them that we have no intention of ever doing so is a good
selling point to those people... sure, the main reason that we aren't going
to sell that info may be because we don't have it, and we're too small for
anybody to want it even if we did, but that's beside the point.

As far as I know, it hadn't ever actually taken effect anyway, so despite
what you'd think from what's on the news, nothing is actually changing from
how it always has been.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> This is a big corporate handout, no need to get conspiracy theories
> involved.
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
>> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
>> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
>> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
>> having access to that data as being important.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
>> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
>> to use the only ISP in their market?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
>> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
>> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
>> crossed their minds.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of
>> Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been
>> perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I
>> think the basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding
>> pledge that small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate
>> one of the clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to
>> commodify every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
>> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
>> end user.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

A switch in line breaks the capabilities of the backhaul to drop the Ethernet 
to force the IGP to reconverge immediately. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Paul McCall"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:38:37 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 



If I had to guess when someone says they don’t want a switch up top, its 
probably because of a practical consideration. Its why we didn’t put Netonix up 
there. We wanted simple. The “switch” part of the S16 is non “thing” to us. The 
VLANs are needed only because BHs are in it and OSPF needs to have an interface 
to address, etc. 

Rip apart and S16 and add Sync Forrest ! 

Paul  

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM 
To: af  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it, and then run short jumpers to their radios. 
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire. 



They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync, with remote control and not much more. When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 



At this point I'm looking at feasability. I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day, a lot depends on the amount of R required. 



On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 




Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 
25 320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox. 

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE. We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber. If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST). Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router. 

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset. But only 
available in commercial temperature range. 



Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff. 
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible, but I 
might end up having to go there. I have another secret weapon in my arsenal but 
I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time. 



On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






I looked at doing media converters last year. Not trivial. 






From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM 

To: af 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 




Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 



I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top.. Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management. 



I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating. So I need to tear some more of the units apart to 
figure out what chipsets are available. 



-forrest 






On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 




RB260. 

Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of. That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for. 





-- Original Message -- 

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 

To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 

Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM 

Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 






I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes. Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments. 



What is everyone using? 









--

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

So, is there any doubt that Google had employees that rotated throughout the 
Obama administration, Google had a hand in Net Neutrality, or that 20 pages of 
the act were pulled right before the vote?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Bill Prince
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Nor is it "news".

bp

On 3/31/2017 12:40 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:
It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more about 
the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This 
information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe 
Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do with 
the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince 
> wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?

bp

On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" >
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

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

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

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

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

In migration to fiber to the radio, you replace the media conversion\PoE with a 
fiber patch cord and raw DC. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:35:41 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


An industrial switch on the tower doesn't trouble me either. 
The objection might be that it's a point of failure for every other device on 
the tower. The sync/media converter thing could be also. 


-- Original Message -- 
From: "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > 
To: "af@afmug.com" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: 3/31/2017 10:27:05 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 






How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector there? “the 
non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, unless you are saying that 
every POE port has a corresponding fiber port that would mate with a fiber 
strand coming down the tower and have a router with a bunch of SFPs to match. 

The S16 is a good model, just add Sync. Extremely simple. No fiber terminations 
at the top. (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way to not have to do the 
tower top terminations) The next models of 16 will have additional SFP ports. I 
assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is when the additional SFPs would appear on the 
S16 type device. 

VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it, and then run short jumpers to their radios. 
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire. 



They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync, with remote control and not much more. When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 



At this point I'm looking at feasability. I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day, a lot depends on the amount of R required. 



On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 




Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 
25 320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox. 

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE. We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber. If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST). Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router. 

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset. But only 
available in commercial temperature range. 



Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff. 
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible, but I 
might end up having to go there. I have another secret weapon in my arsenal but 
I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time. 



On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






I looked at doing media converters last year. Not trivial. 






From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM 

To: af 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 




Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 



I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top.. Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management. 



I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating. So I need to tear some more of the units apart to 
figure out what

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

As few electronics as required up top. No switching\routing. ;-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Paul McCall"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:27:04 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 



How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector there? “the 
non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, unless you are saying that 
every POE port has a corresponding fiber port that would mate with a fiber 
strand coming down the tower and have a router with a bunch of SFPs to match. 

The S16 is a good model, just add Sync. Extremely simple. No fiber terminations 
at the top. (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way to not have to do the 
tower top terminations) The next models of 16 will have additional SFP ports. I 
assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is when the additional SFPs would appear on the 
S16 type device. 

VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM 
To: af  
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it, and then run short jumpers to their radios. 
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire. 



They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync, with remote control and not much more. When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 



At this point I'm looking at feasability. I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day, a lot depends on the amount of R required. 



On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 




Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync. We have a handful of 450s, 
25 320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox. 

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE. We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber. If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST). Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router. 

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy. 

Paul 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account) 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 


I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset. But only 
available in commercial temperature range. 



Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff. 
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible, but I 
might end up having to go there. I have another secret weapon in my arsenal but 
I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time. 



On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






I looked at doing media converters last year. Not trivial. 






From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM 

To: af 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters? 




Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 



I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top.. Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management. 



I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating. So I need to tear some more of the units apart to 
figure out what chipsets are available. 



-forrest 






On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 




RB260. 

Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of. That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for. 





-- Original Message -- 

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" < li...@packetflux.com > 

To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 

Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM 

Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

They want a stand per radio,  with a fiber to universal poe converter on
each strand.  That way all of their switchgear can be at the bottom.   If
you replace all of the Lan ports in a syncinjector with sfp ports, then you
get the idea.

I can think of lots of other ways to make this work,  enough that I
wouldn't be inclined to build this except that this is definitely a
recurring theme.  I think that the idea is that they really want to limit
the quantity of gear at the top.  If it was me, I'd put either a poe switch
up top or a bunch of those ubnt fiber to poe converters, but apparently
there are quite a few wisps who don't like this idea.



On Mar 31, 2017 8:27 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

> How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector
> there?   “the non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, unless
> you are saying that every POE port has a corresponding fiber port that
> would mate with a fiber strand coming down the tower and have a router with
> a bunch of SFPs to match.
>
>
>
> The S16 is a good model, just add Sync.  Extremely simple.  No fiber
> terminations at the top.  (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way to
> not have to do the tower top terminations)  The next models of 16 will have
> additional SFP ports.  I assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is when the
> additional SFPs would appear on the S16 type device.
>
>
>
> VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian
> (List Account)
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?
>
>
>
> What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand
> cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they
> terminate the cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers
> to their radios.   I've heard this from enough different customers that it
> seems like a common desire.
>
>
>
> They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection
> and sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just
> doing a switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was
> unacceptable.
>
>
>
> At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever
> see the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.
>
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:
>
> Forrest,
>
>
>
> For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT
> S16s up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP,
> or Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of
> 450s, 25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.
>
>
>
> Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs
> in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.
> If we have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber
> (off the same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only
> being used (with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a
> media converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the
> router.
>
>
>
> So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form
> of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian
> (List Account)
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?
>
>
>
> I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only
> available in commercial temperature range.
>
>
>
> Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of
> stuff.  I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as
> possible,  but I might end up having to go there.  I have another secret
> weapon in my arsenal but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's
> more software and software takes time.
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
> I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.
>
>
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
>
> *To:* af
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?
>
>
>
> Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.
>
>
>
> I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the
> fiber up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport
> ubiquiti fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along
> with tower-top management.
>
>
>
> I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as
> possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as
> possible - I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found
> any

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, Cambium are you listening?  Disruptive category killer here.  

From: Josh Luthman 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 9:16 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I really really really really really want every radio to do SFP and DC.

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

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
 wrote:

  What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand 
cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate 
the cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers to their 
radios.   I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a 
common desire.  

  They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 

  At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

  On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT 
S16s up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs 
in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  If 
we have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off 
the same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being 
used (with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.   

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form 
of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only 
available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of 
stuff.  I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible,  
but I might end up having to go there.  I have another secret weapon in my 
arsenal but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and 
software takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.  

  From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM

  To: af 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

  Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 

  I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the 
fiber up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport 
ubiquiti fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with 
tower-top management.

  I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of the units apart 
to figure out what chipsets are available.

  -forrest

  On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

RB260.

Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, 
so maybe it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 

To: "af" 

Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM

Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

  I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters 
for reverse engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well 
and especially any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments. 

  What is everyone using?  

  -- 

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Multi strand fiber and super cheap media converters would really simplify the 
tower top.  Put the smarts at the base of the tower. 

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:35 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

An industrial switch on the tower doesn't trouble me either.
The objection might be that it's a point of failure for every other device on 
the tower.  The sync/media converter thing could be also.

-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/31/2017 10:27:05 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

  How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector there?   
“the non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, unless you are saying 
that every POE port has a corresponding fiber port that would mate with a fiber 
strand coming down the tower and have a router with a bunch of SFPs to match.

  The S16 is a good model, just add Sync.  Extremely simple.  No fiber 
terminations at the top.  (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way to not 
have to do the tower top terminations)  The next models of 16 will have 
additional SFP ports.  I assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is when the additional 
SFPs would appear on the S16 type device.

  VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task.  

  Paul

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
  Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
  To: af 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

  What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand 
cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate 
the cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers to their 
radios.   I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a 
common desire. 

  They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable. 

  At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

  On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

Forrest, 

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT 
S16s up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs 
in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  If 
we have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off 
the same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being 
used (with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.   

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form 
of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only 
available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of 
stuff.  I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible,  
but I might end up having to go there.  I have another secret weapon in my 
arsenal but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and 
software takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

  I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.  

  From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM

  To: af 

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

  Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at. 

  I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the 
fiber up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport 
ubiquiti fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with 
tower-top management.

  I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

2017-03-31 Thread Bill Prince


Nor is it "news".


bp


On 3/31/2017 12:40 AM, Jason McKemie wrote:

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway > wrote:


Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you
care more about the source of the writing than the evidence the
brought forth.  This information, although sparse, is accurate. 
I’m sure that you don’t believe Google employees were working in

the administration and had nothing to do with the Net Neutrality
Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince > wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?

bp



  


On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:


http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/



*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
Moffett
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?

citation?

-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" >

To: "af@afmug.com " >

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered
when supporting this bill.  They know Google has been
supplying and manipulating data and search engines for the
Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are
looking at having access to that data as being important.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other
social network companies, but people can choose not to use
google.. How do they choose not to use the only ISP in
their market?

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

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of
*Rory Conaway
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. 
Apparently Google has been selling this data for years.

The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of course,
prohibiting Google from selling this information never
crossed their minds.

Rory

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of
*Peter Kranz
*Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of
Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication
Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and
WISPS, I think the basic concept was sound. I created a
simple non-legally binding pledge that small ISPs and
WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek
to commodify every aspect of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to
own this, but to try to get some visibility for our
industry and its unique respect for the end user.

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Sorry, I couldn't help it.
https://xkcd.com/386/

Good luck with the Privacy Pledge thing.

-- Original Message --
From: "Steve D" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 3/31/2017 10:58:26 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Peter is getting the ball rolling on a piece of marketing for something 
small isp's are probably doing anyway and to help drive people from the 
big dogs.  I'd say sign up, and astro-turf this into every Reddit , ars 
Technica , whatever comment section that talks about this stuff and get 
some people aware of your existence.  This is an opportunity for good 
word of mouth for your business.

Or keep bickering about political bullshit.  Whatever.

On Mar 31, 2017 6:56 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

I wasn't gonna say anything.

I did read the article, and the wikileaks email it cites.  The problem 
is not that the source is Julian Assange, it's that it's Julian 
Assange's opinion.  The cited email doesn't say Google is feeding data 
to Hillary.  Jared Coen (Google Exec) is informing Hillary (via her 
staff) about data in Syria that he's putting on a public map.  During 
the date on the email, Clinton was Secretary of State.  The cited 
email does not say anything about the relationship:  it doesn't say 
whether Jared Coen was doing a favor for Clinton or whether Google was 
working as a contractor for the State Department.

The rest of the claims are inferred either by Assange or by the 
Author.

.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" >

To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/31/2017 4:46:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which 
also happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I 
can't speak to anything she does. The New York Times has 
significantly more journalistic integrity than Brietbart.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway  
wrote:
So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because 
Brietbart writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the 
New York Times or Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would 
accept that as truth.  And you don’t see a problem with that?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
 wrote:

Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care 
more about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought 
forth.  This information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure 
that you don’t believe Google employees were working in the 
administration and had nothing to do with the Net Neutrality Act or 
the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince  
wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?

bp

On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/ 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?

citation?

-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" 

To: "af@afmug.com" 

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when 
supporting this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and 
manipulating data and search engines for the Democrats for years.  
Hell, they started a company specifically to do just that.  I 
think the Republicans are looking at having access to that data as 
being important.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social 
network companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How 
do they choose not to use the only ISP in their market?

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

From: Af

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Gino Villarini

Would it be easier and more universal just to have an external poe converter:

Poe in (from netonix, UBNT S16,Fiber POE) poe+sync out ?

From: Af > on behalf of 
"li...@packetflux.com" 
>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Friday, March 31, 2017 at 10:08 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers to their radios.   
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

Gino Villarini

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" 
> wrote:
Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only 
available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff.  
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible,  but I 
might end up having to go there.  I have another secret weapon in my arsenal 
but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.

From: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of the units apart 
to figure out what chipsets are available.

-forrest

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
RB260.
Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>
To: "af" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments.

What is everyone using?

--
Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, 
Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com |

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

2017-03-31 Thread Steve D

Peter is getting the ball rolling on a piece of marketing for something
small isp's are probably doing anyway and to help drive people from the big
dogs.  I'd say sign up, and astro-turf this into every Reddit , ars
Technica , whatever comment section that talks about this stuff and get
some people aware of your existence.  This is an opportunity for good word
of mouth for your business.

Or keep bickering about political bullshit.  Whatever.

On Mar 31, 2017 6:56 AM, "Adam Moffett"  wrote:

> I wasn't gonna say anything.
>
> I did read the article, and the wikileaks email it cites.  The problem is
> not that the source is Julian Assange, it's that it's Julian Assange's
> *opinion*.  The cited email doesn't say Google is feeding data to
> Hillary.  Jared Coen (Google Exec) is informing Hillary (via her staff)
> about data in Syria that he's putting on a public map.  During the date on
> the email, Clinton was Secretary of State.  The cited email does not say
> anything about the relationship:  it doesn't say whether Jared Coen was
> doing a favor for Clinton or whether Google was working as a contractor for
> the State Department.
>
> The rest of the claims are inferred either by Assange or by the Author.
> .
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jason McKemie" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 3/31/2017 4:46:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
> WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which also
> happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I can't speak
> to anything she does. The New York Times has significantly more
> journalistic integrity than Brietbart.
>
> On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway  wrote:
>
>> So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because Brietbart
>> writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New York Times or
>> Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that as truth.  And you
>> don’t see a problem with that?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more
>> about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This
>> information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe
>> Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do
>> with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that
>> nobody saw.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> +Graham's number.
>>
>>
>>
>> They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>>
>> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>>
>> What planet you live on?
>>
>>
>>
>> bp
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says
>> -google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> Wha?
>>
>> citation?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>>
>> From: "Rory Conaway" 
>>
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>
>> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
>> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
>> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
>> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
>> having access to that data as being important.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rory
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
>> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
>> to use the only ISP in their market?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
>> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
>> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
>> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Paul McCall

If I had to guess when someone says they don’t want a switch up top, its 
probably because of a practical consideration.   Its why we didn’t put Netonix 
up there.  We wanted simple.  The “switch” part of the S16 is non “thing” to 
us.  The VLANs are needed only because BHs are in it and OSPF needs to have an 
interface to address, etc.

Rip apart and S16 and add Sync Forrest !

Paul 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers to their radios.   
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" 
> wrote:
Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only 
available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff.  
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible,  but I 
might end up having to go there.  I have another secret weapon in my arsenal 
but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.

From: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of the units apart 
to figure out what chipsets are available.

-forrest

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
RB260.
Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>
To: "af" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments.

What is everyone using?

--
Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, 
Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | 
http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

An industrial switch on the tower doesn't trouble me either.
The objection might be that it's a point of failure for every other 
device on the tower.  The sync/media converter thing could be also.

-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/31/2017 10:27:05 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector 
there?   “the non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, 
unless you are saying that every POE port has a corresponding fiber 
port that would mate with a fiber strand coming down the tower and have 
a router with a bunch of SFPs to match.

The S16 is a good model, just add Sync.  Extremely simple.  No fiber 
terminations at the top.  (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way 
to not have to do the tower top terminations)  The next models of 16 
will have additional SFP ports.  I assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is 
when the additional SFPs would appear on the S16 type device.

VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian 
(List Account)

Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a 
multistrand cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the top 
which they terminate the cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run 
short jumpers to their radios.   I've heard this from enough different 
customers that it seems like a common desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power 
injection and sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When 
quizzed about just doing a switch and an injector up top, they all 
expressed how this was unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will 
ever see the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R 
required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run 
UBNT S16s up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on 
the ePMP, or Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We 
have a handful of 450s, 25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use 
the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN 
APs in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down 
the fiber.  If we have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on 
their own fiber (off the same MST).  Of course there is core router 
with fiber inputs only being used (with the exception of the 
sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media converter for just to 
isolate the electrical connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some 
form of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian 
(List Account)

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But 
only available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type 
of stuff.  I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent 
as possible,  but I might end up having to go there.  I have another 
secret weapon in my arsenal but I'm hoping I don't have to go there 
since that's more software and software takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:

I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.

From: Forrest Christian (List Account)

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM

To: af

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify 
the fiber up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a 
multiport ubiquiti fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver 
built in, along with tower-top management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little 
as possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple 
as possible - I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I 
haven't found any which I feel comfortable integrating.   So I need 
to tear some more of the units apart to figure out what chipsets are 
available.

-forrest

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

RB260.

Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a 
switch, so maybe it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --

From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 

To: "af" 

Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Paul McCall

How do not have a switch up if you have any form of a SyncInjector there?   
“the non-POE side of the injector” needs to go somewhere, unless you are saying 
that every POE port has a corresponding fiber port that would mate with a fiber 
strand coming down the tower and have a router with a bunch of SFPs to match.

The S16 is a good model, just add Sync.  Extremely simple.  No fiber 
terminations at the top.  (we use MST’s which are a cheap reliable way to not 
have to do the tower top terminations)  The next models of 16 will have 
additional SFP ports.  I assume when UBNT APs have SFPs is when the additional 
SFPs would appear on the S16 type device.

VLANing using a single fiber coming down the tower is a simple task.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:08 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand cable 
up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they terminate the 
cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers to their radios.   
I've heard this from enough different customers that it seems like a common 
desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection and 
sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just doing a 
switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever see 
the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall" 
> wrote:
Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only 
available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff.  
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible,  but I 
might end up having to go there.  I have another secret weapon in my arsenal 
but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.

From: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of the units apart 
to figure out what chipsets are available.

-forrest

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
RB260.
Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>
To: "af" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments.

What is

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account)

What I keep hearing from customers is that they want to run a multistrand
cable up the tower and have an all in one box at the top which they
terminate the cable into, hook up power to it,  and then run short jumpers
to their radios.   I've heard this from enough different customers that it
seems like a common desire.

They all seem to want the box to do media conversion and power injection
and sync,  with remote control and not much more.   When quizzed about just
doing a switch and an injector up top, they all expressed how this was
unacceptable.

At this point I'm looking at feasability.  I'm not sure if this will ever
see the light of day,  a lot depends on the amount of R required.

On Mar 31, 2017 7:07 AM, "Paul McCall"  wrote:

> Forrest,
>
>
>
> For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT
> S16s up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP,
> or Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of
> 450s, 25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.
>
>
>
> Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs
> in one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.
> If we have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber
> (off the same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only
> being used (with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a
> media converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the
> router.
>
>
>
> So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form
> of switch, or it would be quite kludgy.
>
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Forrest Christian
> (List Account)
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
> *To:* af 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?
>
>
>
> I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only
> available in commercial temperature range.
>
>
>
> Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of
> stuff.  I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as
> possible,  but I might end up having to go there.  I have another secret
> weapon in my arsenal but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's
> more software and software takes time.
>
>
>
> On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown"  wrote:
>
> I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.
>
>
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
>
> *To:* af
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?
>
>
>
> Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.
>
>
>
> I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the
> fiber up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport
> ubiquiti fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along
> with tower-top management.
>
>
>
> I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as
> possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as
> possible - I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found
> any which I feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of
> the units apart to figure out what chipsets are available.
>
>
>
> -forrest
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
> RB260.
>
> Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, so
> maybe it's more complicated than you're going for.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>
> To: "af" 
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM
>
> Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?
>
>
>
> I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for
> reverse engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well
> and especially any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments.
>
>
>
> What is everyone using?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
>
> Tel: 406-449-3345 <(406)%20449-3345> | Address: 3577 Countryside Road,
> Helena, MT 59602
>
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge


I wasn't gonna say anything.

I did read the article, and the wikileaks email it cites.  The problem 
is not that the source is Julian Assange, it's that it's Julian 
Assange's opinion.  The cited email doesn't say Google is feeding data 
to Hillary.  Jared Coen (Google Exec) is informing Hillary (via her 
staff) about data in Syria that he's putting on a public map.  During 
the date on the email, Clinton was Secretary of State.  The cited email 
does not say anything about the relationship:  it doesn't say whether 
Jared Coen was doing a favor for Clinton or whether Google was working 
as a contractor for the State Department.


The rest of the claims are inferred either by Assange or by the Author.
.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 3/31/2017 4:46:47 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which 
also happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I 
can't speak to anything she does. The New York Times has significantly 
more journalistic integrity than Brietbart.


On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway  wrote:
So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because 
Brietbart writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New 
York Times or Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that 
as truth.  And you don’t see a problem with that?




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.



On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway  
wrote:


Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care 
more about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought 
forth.  This information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that 
you don’t believe Google employees were working in the administration 
and had nothing to do with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages 
redacted from that act that nobody saw.




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



+Graham's number.



They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".



On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince  
wrote:


You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?



bp


On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/ 





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



Wha?

citation?



-- Original Message --

From: "Rory Conaway" 

To: "af@afmug.com" 

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when 
supporting this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and 
manipulating data and search engines for the Democrats for years.  
Hell, they started a company specifically to do just that.  I think 
the Republicans are looking at having access to that data as being 
important.




Rory





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social 
network companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do 
they choose not to use the only ISP in their market?




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



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently 
Google has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have 
the same rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this 
information never crossed their minds.




Rory



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge



While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of 
Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have 
been perfect, and potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs 
and WISPS, I think the basic concept was sound. I created a simple 
non-legally

Re: [AFMUG] TowerCoverage.com

2017-03-31 Thread Jerry Head


We could use the 900 file please.

On 3/28/2017 2:02 PM, SmarterBroadband wrote:


Before we reinvent the wheel.  Does anyone have TowerCoverage .ant 
antenna pattern files (ready to upload) for the following you are 
willing to share.


epmp 2000 5GHz sector Model #C050900D021A (with and without beam-forming)

450M 5 GHz integrated, beam-forming

450i 5 GHz integrated sector Model #C050045A006B

Also, nice to haves

MTI: MT-485005/VHN

e-PmP Force-110 Integrated Model #C058900P072A

e-PmP Force-180 Integrated Model #C058900P062A

BTW: We have the Cambium 900 MHz sector file if anyone needs it.

Thanks

Adam

[AFMUG] Friday Fun: Largest Reflector Dish

2017-03-31 Thread Ray Savich

Friday Fun: show us your largest reflector dish on Cambium equipment 
http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/Friday-Fun/March-31-2017-My-Reflector/m-p/70987#U70987

Join the Conversation
Cambium Networks Community Forum

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Paul McCall

Forrest,

For what it is worth, when we went Fiber (MST) up the tower, we run UBNT S16s 
up there which is simple and working well, and GPS pucks on the ePMP, or 
Syncbox 12 (or Junior) for devices that need sync.  We have a handful of 450s, 
25  320s, and a dozen or so 900s where we use the SyncBox.

Been very pleased so far with the reliability of the S16 POE.  We VLAN APs in 
one group and BH’s each on their own VLAN, and bring it down the fiber.  If we 
have other devices with fiber, we bring them down on their own fiber (off the 
same MST).  Of course there is core router with fiber inputs only being used 
(with the exception of the sitemonitor which I may have to buy a media 
converter for just to isolate the electrical connection into the router.

So, as far as anything up top, I would think it would have to be some form of 
switch, or it would be quite kludgy.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:26 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I've torn a couple apart that use a fairly easy to use chipset.  But only 
available in commercial temperature range.

Some of the battle here is figuring out the vendors who do this type of stuff.  
I want to avoid switches since I want this as transparent as possible,  but I 
might end up having to go there.  I have another secret weapon in my arsenal 
but I'm hoping I don't have to go there since that's more software and software 
takes time.

On Mar 30, 2017 2:21 PM, "Chuck McCown" 
> wrote:
I looked at doing media converters last year.  Not trivial.

From: Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:07 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of the units apart 
to figure out what chipsets are available.

-forrest

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
RB260.
Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>
To: "af" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments.

What is everyone using?

--
Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | 
http://www.packetflux.com
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons/linkedin.png]
 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons/facebook.png] 

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons/twitter.png]

Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

2017-03-31 Thread Dennis Burgess

http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=734=20

Outdoor ready.  Don’t know if this helps…

Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
MikroTik Certified 
Trainer/Consultant
 – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List 
Account)
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:07 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

Yeah, maybe I should be clearer what I'm looking at.

I'm looking at various options to build a tower-top box to simplify the fiber 
up the tower with syncronized radios at the top..  Think a multiport ubiquiti 
fiberpoe with sync over power and a gps receiver built in, along with tower-top 
management.

I don't want to include a switch up top - most people want as little as 
possible up there, and I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possible - 
I'd rather just use a copper-to-sfp chipset, but I haven't found any which I 
feel comfortable integrating.   So I need to tear some more of the units apart 
to figure out what chipsets are available.

-forrest

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
RB260.
Haven't had one fail due to cold yet that I know of.  That's a switch, so maybe 
it's more complicated than you're going for.

-- Original Message --
From: "Forrest Christian (List Account)" 
>
To: "af" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 1:45:52 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Gigabit ethernet converters?

I want to buy another selection of gigabit copper to sfp converters for reverse 
engineering purposes.  Ideally some which are known to work well and especially 
any which don't fail in non climate controlled environments.

What is everyone using?

--
Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | 
http://www.packetflux.com
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons/linkedin.png]
 [https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons/facebook.png] 

[https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.wisestamp.com/icons/twitter.png]

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Oh brother... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jason McKemie"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:17:03 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 


+Graham's number. 


They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News". 


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince < part15...@gmail.com > wrote: 




You believe Breitbart?!?!? 
What planet you live on? 

bp
 
On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote: 




http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 


Wha? 

citation? 



-- Original Message -- 

From: "Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 

To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 

Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 





One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill. They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years. Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that. I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important. 

Rory 




From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market? 


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



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about. Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights. Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds. 



Rory 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz 
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge 

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage. 

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/ 

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user. 

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

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

WikiLeaks releases only what they feel will help their agenda, which also
happens to be Putin's agenda. I don't watch Rachel Maddow, so I can't speak
to anything she does. The New York Times has significantly more
journalistic integrity than Brietbart.

On Friday, March 31, 2017, Rory Conaway  wrote:

> So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because Brietbart
> writes about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New York Times or
> Rachel Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that as truth.  And you
> don’t see a problem with that?
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> McKemie
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway  > wrote:
>
> Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more
> about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This
> information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe
> Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do
> with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that
> nobody saw.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Jason
> McKemie
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> +Graham's number.
>
>
>
> They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince  > wrote:
>
> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>
> What planet you live on?
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Adam
> Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway"  >
>
> To: "af@afmug.com " <
> af@afmug.com >
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Peter
> Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
> 
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Rory
> Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
> ] *On Behalf Of *Peter
> Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com 
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

So Wikieleaks hasn’t published any fake data ever, but because Brietbart writes 
about it, that means it’s fake data.   But if the New York Times or Rachel 
Maddow said the same thing, you would accept that as truth.  And you don’t see 
a problem with that?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:40 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more about 
the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This 
information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe 
Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do with 
the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that nobody saw.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

+Graham's number.

They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince 
> wrote:

You believe Breitbart?!?!?

What planet you live on?

bp

On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

Wha?
citation?

-- Original Message --
From: "Rory Conaway" >
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting this 
bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and search 
engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company specifically 
to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at having access to that 
data as being important.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network 
companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not to 
use the only ISP in their market?

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

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google has 
been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same rights.  Of 
course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never crossed their 
minds.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and 
Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and 
potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the basic 
concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that small 
ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the clear 
differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify every aspect 
of their customer’s usage.

Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/

I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to try to 
get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the end user.

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

Re: [AFMUG] Comcast testing prepaid service

Haha, yea, missed that.  Thanks.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of David Kunat
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 12:57 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Comcast testing prepaid service

In 2013.

On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/comcast-tests-xfinity-prepaid-internet-service/index.htm



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

“An optimist will tell you the glass is half-full; the pessimist, half-empty; 
and the engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs to be”

Re: [AFMUG] Comcast testing prepaid service

2017-03-31 Thread David Kunat

In 2013.

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:
> 
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/comcast-tests-xfinity-prepaid-internet-service/index.htm
> 
> 
> Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO
> 4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040
> 602-426-0542
> r...@triadwireless.net
> www.triadwireless.net
>  
> “An optimist will tell you the glass is half-full; the pessimist, half-empty; 
> and the engineer will tell you the glass is twice the size it needs to be”
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge

It's not evidence if it is made up or slanted to serve an agenda.

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 2:37 AM, Rory Conaway 
wrote:

> Yea, I believe WickieLeaks but nice try.  It’s amazing that you care more
> about the source of the writing than the evidence the brought forth.  This
> information, although sparse, is accurate.  I’m sure that you don’t believe
> Google employees were working in the administration and had nothing to do
> with the Net Neutrality Act or the 20 pages redacted from that act that
> nobody saw.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> +Graham's number.
>
>
>
> They're about as dependable and un-biased as Fox "News".
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Bill Prince  wrote:
>
> You believe Breitbart?!?!?
>
> What planet you live on?
>
>
>
> bp
>
> 
>
>
>
> On 3/30/2017 7:12 PM, Rory Conaway wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/08/julian-assange-
> says-google-directly-engaged-clinton-campaign/
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 6:50 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> Wha?
>
> citation?
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Rory Conaway" 
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
> Sent: 3/30/2017 9:47:45 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> One other thing that I’m sure the Republicans considered when supporting
> this bill.  They know Google has been supplying and manipulating data and
> search engines for the Democrats for years.  Hell, they started a company
> specifically to do just that.  I think the Republicans are looking at
> having access to that data as being important.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:10 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> It’s true, and it is the core business case of many other social network
> companies, but people can choose not to use google.. How do they choose not
> to use the only ISP in their market?
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Rory Conaway
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 5:02 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> I heard a comment today that I had not thought about.  Apparently Google
> has been selling this data for years. The ISPs wanted to have the same
> rights.  Of course, prohibiting Google from selling this information never
> crossed their minds.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Peter Kranz
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 3:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge
>
>
>
> While the FCC’s proposed “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband
> and Other Telecommunication Services” rule might not have been perfect, and
> potentially difficult to implement for small ISPs and WISPS, I think the
> basic concept was sound. I created a simple non-legally binding pledge that
> small ISPs and WISPS can sign up that I feel will demonstrate one of the
> clear differentiators between us and larger ISPs who seek to commodify
> every aspect of their customer’s usage.
>
>
>
> Check it out at http://privacypledge.us/
>
>
>
> I’m open to comments or revisions, as my goal is not to own this, but to
> try to get some visibility for our industry and its unique respect for the
> end user.
>
>
>
>
> *Peter Kranz *www.UnwiredLtd.com 
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <(510)%20868-1614>
> Mobile: 510-207- <(510)%20207->
> pkr...@unwiredltd.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] ISP Privacy Pledge