Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Sterling Jacobson]

Dennis and I did initial design and setup.

It's documented and represented somewhat in The Dude.

But needs some cleanup of course.

Was just hoping IPArchitechs would be quick to identify and remedy what should 
be simple issues like this.

I've got them responding now, so I'll see how it goes next week on fixes and 
implementation.

I like Dennis, was trying another company for comparison.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 7:10 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

Who did the original setup ?  Were multiple people involved over time with the 
current setup ? 

Sounds like your currently have a  layered configuration without the 
possibility of best practices applied to each layer, thus resulting in this 
issue. 

Is the network well documented  ? If not then it can be a quiet a ball of wax 
to deal with.  

If you have inhouse folks and just need help with identifying the cause of the 
issue, I may be able to help.
If you are looking for a turnkey solution / fix clean up then it will be best 
suited for one the consultants .

Regards.

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

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

- Original Message -
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 4:45:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

> It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.
> 
> But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to 
> route around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly 
> between my two Mikrotik BGP instances.
> 
> That seems to be the major hangup right now.
> 
> I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one 
> Mikrotik to the other, but need a more general policy BGP related that 
> gets automatically filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep 
> all of my own inter-subnet communications internal instead of trying 
> to roam all over creation and back to myself.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> on-list of off-list
> 
> Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ?
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
>> So far, not so good with them.
>> 
>> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
>> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
>> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
>> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
>> 
>> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
>> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
>> 
>> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
>> 
>> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
>> the top experts.
>> 
>> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
>> permanently fixed.
>> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
>> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
>> 
> > So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

Re: [AFMUG] WISP tower and construction cost

[Dev]

Not even close for a monopole, you’ll have more than that in the foundation. I 
guess lattice freestanding would be cheaper? Maybe different in the middle of a 
prairie. Of course a guyed Rohn 25 is a really cheap alternative, but it 
depends on what you need. YMMV

>> A few years back during the broadband stimulus days, we priced a couple
>> tower builds. I'm polling the audience to see if these prices still hold up.
>> 
>> - 150ft. Nello self supporter - $39k

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[David Milholen]

+1

Dennis has fair pricing for what he can do for some complex to simple 
configs I have had done on my network.




On 6/1/2017 12:25 PM, Chuck McCown wrote:

Dennis would be my first choice if I needed outside help.
*From:* can...@believewireless.net
*Sent:* Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:23 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
I noticed the same thing. Not happy at all.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Sterling Jacobson 
 wrote:


So far, not so good with them.

I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them
modify one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things
out on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.

That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic
re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.

When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.

I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for
being the top experts.

I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get
that permanently fixed.
It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate
equipment, spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.

So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.




--

Re: [AFMUG] WISP tower and construction cost

[Chuck Hogg]

I'd recommend talking to Craig House about what he's doing.  Putting up
100-200' towers in a day...I think he told me he's done like 60 of them ?
I'm unsure if he's on this list, but was an AF regular.

Regards,
Chuck

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:15 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:

> We have a tower construction guy.  Certs, Insurance, stacked for
> government agencies, tons of references.  Hit me off list if you want a
> turnkey quote.
>
> Justin
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Lewis Bergman  wrote:
>
> I a.m. currently building a 300' guyed sabre. The tower steel cost 28k
> delivered. I expect it to cost about 30k to construct but I'll let you
> know. 2 carrier with 2ea 6 foot dishes
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 3:36 PM Eric Muehleisen  wrote:
>
>> A few years back during the broadband stimulus days, we priced a couple
>> tower builds. I'm polling the audience to see if these prices still hold up.
>>
>> - 150ft. Nello self supporter - $39k
>> - 195' Saber guyed tower - $42k
>>
>> Those prices included freight, concrete, crane rental and stacking labor.
>> I'm sure costs have gone up, but broadly speaking, are we still in the same
>> ballpark?
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Chuck Hogg]

We used to do this type of consulting.  It's hard to jump into someone's
network, without understanding it.  And depending on how complex the
problem is, it could take a long time to identify the issue.  However, if
the problem isn't fixed, IMO find a new consultant...and like Chuck M
mentioned, Dennis is probably a good fit.

Regards,
Chuck

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:

> Even so, like Paul said... something sounds broken because OSPF should
> have better preference as its distance default is 110, while BGP distance
> default is 200.
>
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wright
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 3:53 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
>
> I'm assuming Mikrotik since he's working with IPArchitechs. *Usually* you
> don’t want to see routes to your own network coming in through the internet
> when you're muti-homed so you add discard rules for your subnets on your
> upstream-bgp-in route filters.
>
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:48 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
>
> Something sounds seriously broken there as OSPF should always have a lower
> route preference on any router (not sure what you’re using here) so any
> lookups within your network will always be preferred.
>
> I get your point though .. if these guys are “experts” then for them it
> should be pretty trivial to diagnose… actually sounds like you have too
> many filters in place that are causing the problem (just a guess but no
> reason to use filters in OSPF typically)
>
> > On Jun 1, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
> >
> > Any reason you don't drop those subnets on your upstream-bgp-in filters?
> >
> > Chris Wright
> > Network Administrator
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:45 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> >
> > It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.
> >
> > But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to
> route around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between
> my two Mikrotik BGP instances.
> >
> > That seems to be the major hangup right now.
> >
> > I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik
> to the other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets
> automatically filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my
> own inter-subnet communications internal instead of trying to roam all over
> creation and back to myself.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> > Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
> > To: af@afmug.com
> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> >
> > on-list of off-list
> >
> > Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ?
> >
> > Faisal Imtiaz
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom
> > 7266 SW 48 Street
> > Miami, FL 33155
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> >
> > Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> >> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
> >> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> >
> >> So far, not so good with them.
> >>
> >> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify
> >> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
> >> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out
> >> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
> >>
> >> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic
> >> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
> >>
> >> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
> >>
> >> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being
> >> the top experts.
> >>
> >> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that
> >> permanently fixed.
> >> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment,
> >> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
> >>
> >> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WISP tower and construction cost

[Justin Wilson]

We have a tower construction guy.  Certs, Insurance, stacked for government 
agencies, tons of references.  Hit me off list if you want a turnkey quote.

Justin


> On Jun 1, 2017, at 5:43 PM, Lewis Bergman  wrote:
> 
> I a.m. currently building a 300' guyed sabre. The tower steel cost 28k 
> delivered. I expect it to cost about 30k to construct but I'll let you know. 
> 2 carrier with 2ea 6 foot dishes
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 3:36 PM Eric Muehleisen  > wrote:
> A few years back during the broadband stimulus days, we priced a couple tower 
> builds. I'm polling the audience to see if these prices still hold up.
> 
> - 150ft. Nello self supporter - $39k
> - 195' Saber guyed tower - $42k
> 
> Those prices included freight, concrete, crane rental and stacking labor. I'm 
> sure costs have gone up, but broadly speaking, are we still in the same 
> ballpark?
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] WISP tower and construction cost

[Chuck Hogg]

We built a Rohn 160' Self Support, $5k in concrete, $12k in tower steel
including climbing ladder/lad safe cable.  About 3 days of assembly prep.
 $3k for the crane for the day, and had it stacked in about 4 hours.

Regards,
Chuck

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Lewis Bergman 
wrote:

> I a.m. currently building a 300' guyed sabre. The tower steel cost 28k
> delivered. I expect it to cost about 30k to construct but I'll let you
> know. 2 carrier with 2ea 6 foot dishes
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 3:36 PM Eric Muehleisen  wrote:
>
>> A few years back during the broadband stimulus days, we priced a couple
>> tower builds. I'm polling the audience to see if these prices still hold up.
>>
>> - 150ft. Nello self supporter - $39k
>> - 195' Saber guyed tower - $42k
>>
>> Those prices included freight, concrete, crane rental and stacking labor.
>> I'm sure costs have gone up, but broadly speaking, are we still in the same
>> ballpark?
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Chris Wright]

Even so, like Paul said... something sounds broken because OSPF should have 
better preference as its distance default is 110, while BGP distance default is 
200.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wright
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 3:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

I'm assuming Mikrotik since he's working with IPArchitechs. *Usually* you don’t 
want to see routes to your own network coming in through the internet when 
you're muti-homed so you add discard rules for your subnets on your 
upstream-bgp-in route filters.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

Something sounds seriously broken there as OSPF should always have a lower 
route preference on any router (not sure what you’re using here) so any lookups 
within your network will always be preferred.

I get your point though .. if these guys are “experts” then for them it should 
be pretty trivial to diagnose… actually sounds like you have too many filters 
in place that are causing the problem (just a guess but no reason to use 
filters in OSPF typically)

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
> 
> Any reason you don't drop those subnets on your upstream-bgp-in filters?
> 
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:45 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.
> 
> But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to route 
> around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between my two 
> Mikrotik BGP instances.
> 
> That seems to be the major hangup right now.
> 
> I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik to 
> the other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets automatically 
> filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my own inter-subnet 
> communications internal instead of trying to roam all over creation and back 
> to myself.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> on-list of off-list
> 
> Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
>> So far, not so good with them.
>> 
>> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
>> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
>> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
>> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
>> 
>> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
>> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
>> 
>> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
>> 
>> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
>> the top experts.
>> 
>> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
>> permanently fixed.
>> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
>> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
>> 
>> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.
> 

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Chris Wright]

I'm assuming Mikrotik since he's working with IPArchitechs. *Usually* you don’t 
want to see routes to your own network coming in through the internet when 
you're muti-homed so you add discard rules for your subnets on your 
upstream-bgp-in route filters.

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Stewart
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

Something sounds seriously broken there as OSPF should always have a lower 
route preference on any router (not sure what you’re using here) so any lookups 
within your network will always be preferred.

I get your point though .. if these guys are “experts” then for them it should 
be pretty trivial to diagnose… actually sounds like you have too many filters 
in place that are causing the problem (just a guess but no reason to use 
filters in OSPF typically)

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
> 
> Any reason you don't drop those subnets on your upstream-bgp-in filters?
> 
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:45 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.
> 
> But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to route 
> around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between my two 
> Mikrotik BGP instances.
> 
> That seems to be the major hangup right now.
> 
> I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik to 
> the other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets automatically 
> filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my own inter-subnet 
> communications internal instead of trying to roam all over creation and back 
> to myself.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> on-list of off-list
> 
> Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
>> So far, not so good with them.
>> 
>> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
>> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
>> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
>> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
>> 
>> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
>> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
>> 
>> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
>> 
>> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
>> the top experts.
>> 
>> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
>> permanently fixed.
>> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
>> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
>> 
>> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.
> 

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Paul Stewart]

Something sounds seriously broken there as OSPF should always have a lower 
route preference on any router (not sure what you’re using here) so any lookups 
within your network will always be preferred.

I get your point though .. if these guys are “experts” then for them it should 
be pretty trivial to diagnose… actually sounds like you have too many filters 
in place that are causing the problem (just a guess but no reason to use 
filters in OSPF typically)

> On Jun 1, 2017, at 4:58 PM, Chris Wright  wrote:
> 
> Any reason you don't drop those subnets on your upstream-bgp-in filters?
> 
> Chris Wright
> Network Administrator
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:45 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.
> 
> But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to route 
> around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between my two 
> Mikrotik BGP instances.
> 
> That seems to be the major hangup right now.
> 
> I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik to 
> the other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets automatically 
> filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my own inter-subnet 
> communications internal instead of trying to roam all over creation and back 
> to myself.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
> on-list of off-list
> 
> Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects
> 
>> So far, not so good with them.
>> 
>> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
>> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
>> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
>> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
>> 
>> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
>> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
>> 
>> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
>> 
>> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
>> the top experts.
>> 
>> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
>> permanently fixed.
>> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
>> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
>> 
>> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Elevate license warning

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, that's normal... it says the limit is 30, so you should be fine.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Is this warning expected even though I have room for 30 users?
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> 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] WISP tower and construction cost

[Lewis Bergman]

I a.m. currently building a 300' guyed sabre. The tower steel cost 28k
delivered. I expect it to cost about 30k to construct but I'll let you
know. 2 carrier with 2ea 6 foot dishes

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017, 3:36 PM Eric Muehleisen  wrote:

> A few years back during the broadband stimulus days, we priced a couple
> tower builds. I'm polling the audience to see if these prices still hold up.
>
> - 150ft. Nello self supporter - $39k
> - 195' Saber guyed tower - $42k
>
> Those prices included freight, concrete, crane rental and stacking labor.
> I'm sure costs have gone up, but broadly speaking, are we still in the same
> ballpark?
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Sterling Jacobson]

I don't know, probably, that's what I paid IPArchitects to check for me...

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wright
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

Any reason you don't drop those subnets on your upstream-bgp-in filters?

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.

But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to route 
around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between my two 
Mikrotik BGP instances.

That seems to be the major hangup right now.

I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik to the 
other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets automatically 
filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my own inter-subnet 
communications internal instead of trying to roam all over creation and back to 
myself.



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

on-list of off-list

Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 

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

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

- Original Message -
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects

> So far, not so good with them.
> 
> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
> 
> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
> 
> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
> 
> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
> the top experts.
> 
> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
> permanently fixed.
> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
> 
> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Chris Wright]

Any reason you don't drop those subnets on your upstream-bgp-in filters?

Chris Wright
Network Administrator


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.

But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to route 
around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between my two 
Mikrotik BGP instances.

That seems to be the major hangup right now.

I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik to the 
other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets automatically 
filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my own inter-subnet 
communications internal instead of trying to roam all over creation and back to 
myself.



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

on-list of off-list

Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 

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

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

- Original Message -
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects

> So far, not so good with them.
> 
> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
> 
> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
> 
> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
> 
> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
> the top experts.
> 
> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
> permanently fixed.
> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
> 
> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Sterling Jacobson]

It is a routing problem, probably a BGP change outside of us.

But I have internal BGP and several /24 subnets that I don't want to route 
around the internet and back to myself, just to hop directly between my two 
Mikrotik BGP instances.

That seems to be the major hangup right now.

I have a single static entry to route a specific block from one Mikrotik to the 
other, but need a more general policy BGP related that gets automatically 
filtered down to my OSPF network and MPLS to keep all of my own inter-subnet 
communications internal instead of trying to roam all over creation and back to 
myself.



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

on-list of off-list

Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 

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

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

- Original Message -
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects

> So far, not so good with them.
> 
> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify 
> one temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out 
> on BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
> 
> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic 
> re-routed, but left me with a bunch of other problems.
> 
> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
> 
> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being 
> the top experts.
> 
> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
> permanently fixed.
> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
> 
> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

[AFMUG] WISP tower and construction cost

[Eric Muehleisen]

A few years back during the broadband stimulus days, we priced a couple
tower builds. I'm polling the audience to see if these prices still hold up.

- 150ft. Nello self supporter - $39k
- 195' Saber guyed tower - $42k

Those prices included freight, concrete, crane rental and stacking labor.
I'm sure costs have gone up, but broadly speaking, are we still in the same
ballpark?

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Robert Haas]

This was brought up with our discussions with Toly and ANPI(or whoever they are 
this week). We are looking at more of a hosted PBX solution outside of our ILEC 
territory for companies that also have presence within our ILEC territory. 

In that scenario we would port our number to Toly as well as the RBOC number 
for the other locations. 

 

There was a few different choices on how to carry the traffic as well (ie them 
handling it 100% or route the traffic back to us). 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:46 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

 

We would just be porting, not moving an NXX.  

 

From: Lewis Bergman 

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:36 PM

To: af@afmug.com   

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

 

Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you don't know whay your talking about in this 
specific instance.  Maybe I don't.  I am betting just this once it's you. 
Unless you have been a carrier in a remote rate center trying to get those 
NXX's somewhere else you may not be aware how this works. 

You can't port an NXX. You have to modify the LERG and assign those numbers to 
a different CLI. You can't,  or at least didn't use to be able to do that, 
without paying transport fees.  Last time I tried it they refused, as is their 
right, to do it with anything other than T1's or DS3 which they would happily 
sell me. Of course I think Chuck would only have to pay the part of the circuit 
outside his rate center. 

In short, if you want to send an NXX somewhere, hook some Adtran boxes to your 
class 5 and route the NXX to it then send them wherever you like. That's the 
easiest solution and likely the cheapest long term.

Voip is way easier than circuit switched. I don't know why Chuck doesn't just 
get some voip solution and did it himself.  Freepbx, NetSapiens, ipifony, 
Dialogic. There are so many. 

Ten again maybe your just sick of the distraction which I can completely 
understand. 

 

On Wed, May 31, 2017, 8:11 PM Mike Hammett  > wrote:

He's not asking for anything special, other than the ratecenter he wants 
covered.

 



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Lewis Bergman"  
>
To: af@afmug.com  

Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:37:36 PM


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

NetSapiens does software. We have about 25 NXX's assigned to us.  There is no 
way a standard voip provider can do what you want Chuck.  You have to have 
somebody with an A-Z code and class 5 switch like you have. You then have to 
reassign that block to that switch.  You then have to route that to something 
that can turn it into voip. Your switch can I guess, I am sure you know.  If 
outside your LATA you have to pay mileage. I think you are the only one in your 
LATA right? 

Anyway. Call me If you want to talk about it Chuck.  I saw someone on a voip 
list asking how to do this and describing your exact circumstances.  I am 
guessing you talked to someone about it today. 

 

On Wed, May 31, 2017, 11:20 AM Mike Hammett  > wrote:

NetSapiens does equipment, not service.

 



-
Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions
   
  
  
 
  Midwest Internet Exchange
   
  
 
  The Brothers WISP
   
 





  _  


From: "Lewis Bergman"  
>
To: af@afmug.com  
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:10:23 AM


Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

CTI uses NetSapiens as do some others. They are a bit more expensive than some 
alternatives but if they do what they said they would do (handle 100% of all 
porting) that can be worth a bit depending on how big an ass your losing 
carrier 

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[Lewis Bergman]

First off, stop using what I say against me. Don't you know I am not paying
attention when I writing this crap?

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM  wrote:

> Lewis Bergman wrote:
> > I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi.
>   The title of your post is Muni WiFi.
>
> Good point

> > As for the  cheese, I would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay
> themselves.
> > They are paid off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still
> taxes pay them.
>   I don't think that's quite how it works, unless you specifically issue
> tax finance bonds.
>
>   If the municipality issues revenue bonds, there is no gubment cheese, as
> only revenues from operations are used to pay the bond. The government
> isn't even on the hook for a default, if they are pure revenue bonds.
>
> revenue bonds affect the indebtedness rating of the taxing entity issuing
them and a failure to pay those definitely affects your bond rating.
Regardless if tax money is directly used, tax dollars are indirectly
affected if the entity ever borrows money while this is outstanding.

>   Even if the muni issues tax guaranteed bonds, it does not necessarily
> mean there will be any gubment cheese. During normal operations the network
> users will pay for the bond, and that's that. The gubment cheese only comes
> into play if the operations are unprofitable and they are incapable to pay
> the bond payments.
>
>   So the existential question is, is there any gubment cheese if the
> cheese is never seen nor used?


To put it more simply. the entities credit rating is impacted, therefore
their rates are. If the rates are impacted, other borrowing is that is tax
funded.

I understand why some favor government involvement. I happen not to favor
such involvement unless no other alternative exists. Some things arguably
have to be done by government. The number of those things should be very
small IMO.

As a for instance, our community just finished a public water park. Our
second. Yet for some reason the council deems it necessary to float a bond
to repave the streets. Streets are a great example of what government
should do and they decide they can't do it out of ordinary expenditures.
Yet they think they should build and operate water parks? seems more than a
bit idiotic to me. Publicly owned internet is in the water park arena to
me. If you are of the opinion that internet is just like food, water, and
air, then I guess that is where we would disagree.

Do what you is your job very well, then, if you have anything left over do
your fun stuff. My issue with a great many of the muni projects like fiber,
wifi, and water parks, is that they are not even performing their primary
tasks sufficiently.

Anyway...nice catch.

>
>
Jared
>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017
> > From: "Lewis Bergman"  lewis.berg...@gmail.com]>
> > To: "Animal Farm" 
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
> >
> > I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
> >
> > *Colorado*
> > *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> > Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> > internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> > <
> http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213=0b96ba638b=cc20c00449[http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213=0b96ba638b=cc20c00449]
> >—is
> > considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop
> its
> > own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> > reports *Community
> > Networks.*
> >
> > The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> > would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> > provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> > municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure,
> which
> > could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
> >
> > In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> > Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> > providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> > chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities
> from
> > building out their own networks.
> >
> > Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents
> favor
> > the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through
> the
> > city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> > Networks* that
> > voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> > question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> > around to do it yet?’”
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

[Eric Kuhnke]

Don't discount the threat from that, for a WISP, if they put them
sufficiently close to the customer. With 4-year-old VDSL2 30a tech, at
sufficient short loop length it's possible to do 100 x 100 Mbps symmetric.
The telco only needs to feed each 2RU sized DSLAM with a 1GbE full duplex
connection, considering ordinary residential end user usage patterns and
standard oversubscription ratio.

It is way, way more aggregate bandwidth per DSLAM than you can do even with
a high density 256QAM PtMP wireless platform and if it is built right can
be rock solid.



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Tyson Burris  wrote:

> This is similar to what they put up in our area.  However, most of the
> ones I have seen, they had to go back and have power and meters put in next
> to it.  This delayed the promised delivery dates.
>
> The Phase 1 funding project was supposed to be done back in March.  Only
> loss one customer to it.
>
>
>
> The CenturyLink field tech told them it was government funded fiber to the
> home.  Obviously that was lie.  Same old land line up to the house.  Not
> sure what speed he got.
>
>
>
> I see they are handing out .54 per share dividends now.  Must be some
> government money moved around on the books.  What would they ever do
> without that constant taxpayer funding?
>
>
>
> *Tyson Burris, President*
> *Internet Communications Inc.*
> *739 Commerce Dr.*
> *Franklin, IN 46131*
>
> *Daytime #* *317-738-0320 *
> *Cell/Direct #* *317-412-1540 *
> *Online: **www.surfici.net* 
>
>
>
> [image: ICI]
>
> *What can ICI do for you?*
>
>
> *Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP
> Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.*
>
> *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the*
> *addressee shown. It contains information that is*
> *confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,*
> *dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by*
> *unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly*
> *prohibited.*
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Kuhnke
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 1, 2017 1:44 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
>
>
> Highly dependent on wiring condition and other factors in addition to loop
> length. In a condo or apartment building (g.fast DSLAM install in
> basement), POTS wiring from 1990 will be quite different from a building
> constructed in 1962.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> Distance Performance target
> <328' 500–1000 Mbit/s
> 328' 500 Mbit/s
> 656' 200 Mbit/s
> 820' 150 Mbit/s
> 1640'  100 Mbit/s[18]
>
>
> From: Chuck McCown
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:34 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
> Something like a gig at 400 feet.
> Google g.fast
> https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html
>
> From: Kurt Fankhauser
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
> what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
> Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to
> get back though.
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
>
>
> they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall
> mount.
>
>
>
> https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
> Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?
>
> On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas  wrote:
>
>
> A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.
>
> These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on site.
> We have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line
> powered from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing
> service in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area
> feeding these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up
> later or are these things pulling 

[AFMUG] Elevate license warning

[Josh Luthman]

Is this warning expected even though I have room for 30 users?

[image: Inline image 1]

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

Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

[Tyson Burris]

Somehow, the whole notation of a bottle neck in a network goes out the door 
with the word fiber.


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

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

[ICI]
What can ICI do for you?

Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 3:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

Fiber to the node, curb, prem, home. tomatoe to-mah-tow.  Customer hears 
“fiber” and gets excited.

From: Tyson Burris
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

This is similar to what they put up in our area.  However, most of the ones I 
have seen, they had to go back and have power and meters put in next to it.  
This delayed the promised delivery dates.
The Phase 1 funding project was supposed to be done back in March.  Only loss 
one customer to it.

The CenturyLink field tech told them it was government funded fiber to the 
home.  Obviously that was lie.  Same old land line up to the house.  Not sure 
what speed he got.

I see they are handing out .54 per share dividends now.  Must be some 
government money moved around on the books.  What would they ever do without 
that constant taxpayer funding?

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

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

[ICI]
What can ICI do for you?

Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Highly dependent on wiring condition and other factors in addition to loop 
length. In a condo or apartment building (g.fast DSLAM install in basement), 
POTS wiring from 1990 will be quite different from a building constructed in 
1962.



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Chuck McCown 
> wrote:
Distance Performance target
<328' 500–1000 Mbit/s
328' 500 Mbit/s
656' 200 Mbit/s
820' 150 Mbit/s
1640'  100 Mbit/s[18]


From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Something like a gig at 400 feet.
Google g.fast
https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html

From: Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie 
> 
wrote:
Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to get 
back though.


On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar 
> wrote:


they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall mount.



https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html













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 Jason 
McKemie 
>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas 
> wrote:


A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.

These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on site. We 
have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line powered 
from 

[AFMUG] browser_act.pdf

[Chuck McCown]

I don’t think there is anything here to get excited about.  

browser_act.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

[Chuck McCown]

Fiber to the node, curb, prem, home. tomatoe to-mah-tow.  Customer hears 
“fiber” and gets excited.  

From: Tyson Burris 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

This is similar to what they put up in our area.  However, most of the ones I 
have seen, they had to go back and have power and meters put in next to it.  
This delayed the promised delivery dates.

The Phase 1 funding project was supposed to be done back in March.  Only loss 
one customer to it.  

 

The CenturyLink field tech told them it was government funded fiber to the 
home.  Obviously that was lie.  Same old land line up to the house.  Not sure 
what speed he got. 

 

I see they are handing out .54 per share dividends now.  Must be some 
government money moved around on the books.  What would they ever do without 
that constant taxpayer funding?

 

Tyson Burris, President 
Internet Communications Inc. 
739 Commerce Dr. 
Franklin, IN 46131 
  
Daytime # 317-738-0320 
Cell/Direct # 317-412-1540 
Online: www.surfici.net 

 



What can ICI do for you? 


Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure. 
  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the 
addressee shown. It contains information that is 
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, 
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly 
prohibited. 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

 

Highly dependent on wiring condition and other factors in addition to loop 
length. In a condo or apartment building (g.fast DSLAM install in basement), 
POTS wiring from 1990 will be quite different from a building constructed in 
1962.

 

 

 

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Distance Performance target
  <328' 500–1000 Mbit/s
  328' 500 Mbit/s
  656' 200 Mbit/s
  820' 150 Mbit/s
  1640'  100 Mbit/s[18]


  From: Chuck McCown
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:34 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

  Something like a gig at 400 feet.
  Google g.fast
  https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html

  From: Kurt Fankhauser
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

  what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?

  On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:
  Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to get 
back though.


  On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:


  they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall mount.



  https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html













  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 Jason McKemie 

  Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

  Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?

  On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas  wrote:


  A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.

  These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on site. We 
have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line powered 
from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)





  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?














  Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing 
service in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area 
feeding these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up 
later or are these things pulling power from copper phone lines already in the 
area? The pulled some fiber into these boxes as well/






 

Re: [AFMUG] Does this CenturyLink box need AC power in ROW?

[Tyson Burris]

This is similar to what they put up in our area.  However, most of the ones I 
have seen, they had to go back and have power and meters put in next to it.  
This delayed the promised delivery dates.
The Phase 1 funding project was supposed to be done back in March.  Only loss 
one customer to it.

The CenturyLink field tech told them it was government funded fiber to the 
home.  Obviously that was lie.  Same old land line up to the house.  Not sure 
what speed he got.

I see they are handing out .54 per share dividends now.  Must be some 
government money moved around on the books.  What would they ever do without 
that constant taxpayer funding?

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

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

[ICI]
What can ICI do for you?

Broadband Wireless - PtP/PtMP Solutions - WiMax - Mesh Wifi/Hotzones - IP 
Security - Fiber - Tower - Infrastructure.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the
addressee shown. It contains information that is
confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by
unauthorized organizations or individuals is strictly
prohibited.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 1:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Highly dependent on wiring condition and other factors in addition to loop 
length. In a condo or apartment building (g.fast DSLAM install in basement), 
POTS wiring from 1990 will be quite different from a building constructed in 
1962.



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Chuck McCown 
> wrote:
Distance Performance target
<328' 500–1000 Mbit/s
328' 500 Mbit/s
656' 200 Mbit/s
820' 150 Mbit/s
1640'  100 Mbit/s[18]


From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Something like a gig at 400 feet.
Google g.fast
https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html

From: Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie 
> 
wrote:
Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to get 
back though.


On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar 
> wrote:


they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall mount.



https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html













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 Jason 
McKemie 
>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas 
> wrote:


A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.

These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on site. We 
have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line powered 
from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?












Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing service 
in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area feeding 
these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up later or 
are these things pulling power from copper phone lines already in the area? The 
pulled some fiber into these boxes as well/

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[Chuck McCown]

Well there are private power companies competing with public power companies.
Private water companies competing with public water utilities.

Why should this be any different?  

The trend over the last 1000 years has been for the government to slowly give 
up control of their fiefdoms.  

As I have oft repeated, in 1985 the FCC allowed unlicensed spread spectrum.  
In 1996 the FCC allowed you all to compete with common carriers.  (Privately 
held telecom companies in many cases, just like you).  

Not fair to them?

So just a few short years ago, it would have been illegal for you to do what it 
is you do.  I am grateful for the changes in the regulatory structure.  

The government gave you the ability to compete with them.  Now some who have 
taken advantage of that gift thinks it is unfair to grant a reciprocal right?   
People are funny.  

I play both sides of this issue.  


From: Sean Heskett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 12:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

Still govmnt cheese in my book cuz I sure can't just issue a bond to raise 
capital.  Totally unfair advantage if you ask me.  There are wisps in this area 
FYI 

2 cents

-Sean


On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:56 PM  wrote:

  Lewis Bergman wrote:
  > I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi.
The title of your post is Muni WiFi.

  > As for the  cheese, I would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay 
themselves.
  > They are paid off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still 
taxes pay them.
I don't think that's quite how it works, unless you specifically issue tax 
finance bonds.

If the municipality issues revenue bonds, there is no gubment cheese, as 
only revenues from operations are used to pay the bond. The government isn't 
even on the hook for a default, if they are pure revenue bonds.

Even if the muni issues tax guaranteed bonds, it does not necessarily mean 
there will be any gubment cheese. During normal operations the network users 
will pay for the bond, and that's that. The gubment cheese only comes into play 
if the operations are unprofitable and they are incapable to pay the bond 
payments.

So the existential question is, is there any gubment cheese if the cheese 
is never seen nor used?

  Jared

  > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017
  > From: "Lewis Bergman" 

  > To: "Animal Farm" 
  > Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
  >
  > I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
  >
  > *Colorado*
  > *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
  > Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
  > internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
  > 
—is
  > considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
  > own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
  > reports *Community
  > Networks.*
  >
  > The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
  > would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
  > provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
  > municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
  > could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
  >
  > In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
  > Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
  > providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
  > chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
  > building out their own networks.
  >
  > Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
  > the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
  > city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
  > Networks* that
  > voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
  > question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
  > around to do it yet?’”
  >

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[Sean Heskett]

Still govmnt cheese in my book cuz I sure can't just issue a bond to raise
capital.  Totally unfair advantage if you ask me.  There are wisps in this
area FYI

2 cents

-Sean


On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 7:56 PM  wrote:

> Lewis Bergman wrote:
> > I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi.
>   The title of your post is Muni WiFi.
>
> > As for the  cheese, I would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay
> themselves.
> > They are paid off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still
> taxes pay them.
>   I don't think that's quite how it works, unless you specifically issue
> tax finance bonds.
>
>   If the municipality issues revenue bonds, there is no gubment cheese, as
> only revenues from operations are used to pay the bond. The government
> isn't even on the hook for a default, if they are pure revenue bonds.
>
>   Even if the muni issues tax guaranteed bonds, it does not necessarily
> mean there will be any gubment cheese. During normal operations the network
> users will pay for the bond, and that's that. The gubment cheese only comes
> into play if the operations are unprofitable and they are incapable to pay
> the bond payments.
>
>   So the existential question is, is there any gubment cheese if the
> cheese is never seen nor used?
>
> Jared
>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017
> > From: "Lewis Bergman"  lewis.berg...@gmail.com]>
> > To: "Animal Farm" 
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
> >
> > I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
> >
> > *Colorado*
> > *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> > Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> > internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> > <
> http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213=0b96ba638b=cc20c00449[http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213=0b96ba638b=cc20c00449]
> >—is
> > considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop
> its
> > own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> > reports *Community
> > Networks.*
> >
> > The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> > would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> > provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> > municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure,
> which
> > could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
> >
> > In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> > Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> > providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> > chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities
> from
> > building out their own networks.
> >
> > Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents
> favor
> > the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through
> the
> > city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> > Networks* that
> > voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> > question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> > around to do it yet?’”
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Faisal Imtiaz]

on-list of off-list

Care to share what is the problem you are trying or needing to solve ? 

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

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

- Original Message -
> From: "Sterling Jacobson" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:53:32 AM
> Subject: [AFMUG] IP Architects

> So far, not so good with them.
> 
> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify one
> temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out on 
> BGP/eBGP
> and OSPF.
> 
> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic re-routed, but 
> left
> me with a bunch of other problems.
> 
> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
> 
> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being the top
> experts.
> 
> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that
> permanently fixed.
> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, spending
> hours of my money, to understand the problem.
> 
> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>>> I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport 
>>> and connections. But there is no money in it for me to go to that work. 

This is where the Risk/Reward comes into play. 

If all the pieces are available to you, and it is just a matter of 'time & 
effort' to put it all together in a manageable system, we can provide you with 
that too.as a one-time implementation or as a managed system.. 

Lots of ways this can be sliced and diced. 

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

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

> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:34:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

> Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high.
> I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry.
> So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of
> connection.
> If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be
> jitter or latency.
> So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional 
> tandem
> if I can get it.
> I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and
> connections. But there is no money in it for me to go to that work.
> From: Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
i f the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
the
> >>>tandem, the quality should be pretty high
> Yes, sort off
> Explanation:-
> There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or
> "Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or
> "Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)...
> Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both
> legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ...
> Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection gets more
> challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD.
> VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the
> Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end.
> Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) 
> is
> of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine...
> In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from Codec 
> Conversions
> (especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter  latency
> tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing factor, but these
> days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two IP Transit
> Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports).
> Regards
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>> If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>> the
>> tandem, the quality should be pretty high. Better than using best-effort 
>> public
>> routing to the gateway.
>> But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
>> well,
>> it may not be a difference that would be noticeable.
>> From: Faisal Imtiaz
>> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>> @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the 
>> whole
>> picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum commits
>> are taken into account.
>> Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID
>> lookup, and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees
>> along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.
>> At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000
>> subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the
>> flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to
>> change.
>> In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be 
>> accurate,
>> and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion of the
>> actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e. how 
>> many
>> codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the network
>> connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks like.
>> Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the 
>> call
>> control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on the
>> network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call control
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[fiberrun]

Lewis Bergman wrote:
> I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi. 
  The title of your post is Muni WiFi. 

> As for the  cheese, I would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay 
> themselves.
> They are paid off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still taxes 
> pay them.
  I don't think that's quite how it works, unless you specifically issue tax 
finance bonds. 

  If the municipality issues revenue bonds, there is no gubment cheese, as only 
revenues from operations are used to pay the bond. The government isn't even on 
the hook for a default, if they are pure revenue bonds. 

  Even if the muni issues tax guaranteed bonds, it does not necessarily mean 
there will be any gubment cheese. During normal operations the network users 
will pay for the bond, and that's that. The gubment cheese only comes into play 
if the operations are unprofitable and they are incapable to pay the bond 
payments. 

  So the existential question is, is there any gubment cheese if the cheese is 
never seen nor used?

Jared

> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017
> From: "Lewis Bergman" 
> 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
>
> I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
>
> *Colorado*
> *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> —is
> considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
> own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> reports *Community
> Networks.*
>
> The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
> could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
>
> In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
> building out their own networks.
>
> Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
> the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
> city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> Networks* that
> voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> around to do it yet?’”
>

Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

[Eric Kuhnke]

Highly dependent on wiring condition and other factors in addition to loop
length. In a condo or apartment building (g.fast DSLAM install in
basement), POTS wiring from 1990 will be quite different from a building
constructed in 1962.



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> Distance Performance target
> <328' 500–1000 Mbit/s
> 328' 500 Mbit/s
> 656' 200 Mbit/s
> 820' 150 Mbit/s
> 1640'  100 Mbit/s[18]
>
>
> From: Chuck McCown
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:34 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
> Something like a gig at 400 feet.
> Google g.fast
> https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html
>
> From: Kurt Fankhauser
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
> what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
> Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to
> get back though.
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
>
>
> they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall
> mount.
>
>
>
> https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
> Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?
>
> On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas  wrote:
>
>
> A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.
>
> These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on site.
> We have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line
> powered from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing
> service in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area
> feeding these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up
> later or are these things pulling power from copper phone lines already in
> the area? The pulled some fiber into these boxes as well/
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

[Chuck McCown]

Distance Performance target
<328' 500–1000 Mbit/s
328' 500 Mbit/s
656' 200 Mbit/s
820' 150 Mbit/s
1640'  100 Mbit/s[18]


From: Chuck McCown
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:34 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Something like a gig at 400 feet.
Google g.fast
https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html

From: Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:
Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to get 
back though.



On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:


they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall mount.



https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html













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 Jason McKemie 


Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas  wrote:


A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.

These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on site. 
We have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line 
powered from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)






From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?













Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing 
service in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area 
feeding these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up 
later or are these things pulling power from copper phone lines already in 
the area? The pulled some fiber into these boxes as well/

Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

[Chuck McCown]

Something like a gig at 400 feet.
Google g.fast
https://aem-dev.calix.com/solutions/g-fast.html

From: Kurt Fankhauser 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:

  Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to get 
back though. 


  On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:

they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall mount.



https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html











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 Jason McKemie 

Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW? 

Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?

On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas  wrote:

  A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.

  These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on 
site. We have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All line 
powered from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)




  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser
  Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?







  Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing 
service in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area 
feeding these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up 
later or are these things pulling power from copper phone lines already in the 
area? The pulled some fiber into these boxes as well/

Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?

[Kurt Fankhauser]

what kind of speed can they got on DSL and at what distances from this box?

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Thanks, I just requested a quote - I'm a bit scared of what I'm going to
> get back though.
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:
>
>> they do have an all outdoor gpon unit, the e3-2.  Strand mount / wall
>> mount.
>>
>>
>> https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-2-intelligent-pon-node.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Carlos Alcantar
>>
>> Race Communications / Race Team Member
>>
>> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
>>
>> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 <(415)%20376-3314> / car...@race.com / http://www
>> .race.com
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Af  on behalf of Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 26, 2017 3:48:57 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>>
>> Does Calix have an all-outdoor GPON unit like this?
>>
>> On Friday, May 26, 2017, Robert Haas  wrote:
>>
>>> A little late – but that appears to be a calix e3-48.
>>>
>>> These can be line powered from remote and do not require AC power on
>>> site. We have about ~60 of the e3-12c and 4 of the e3-48’s deployed. All
>>> line powered from the office using 3-6 pair and 360vdc. (+180, -180)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Kurt Fankhauser
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:26 PM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Does this centurylink box need AC power in ROW?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Centurylink just installed a couple of these in an area I am providing
>>> service in. There is no Electrical power from the power company in the area
>>> feeding these boxes. Just wondering if they are coming back to hook that up
>>> later or are these things pulling power from copper phone lines already in
>>> the area? The pulled some fiber into these boxes as well/
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[Chuck McCown]

Dennis would be my first choice if I needed outside help.  

From: can...@believewireless.net 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:23 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

I noticed the same thing. Not happy at all.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:

  So far, not so good with them.

  I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify one 
temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
  Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out on 
BGP/eBGP and OSPF.

  That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic re-routed, but 
left me with a bunch of other problems.

  When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.

  I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being the top 
experts.

  I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
permanently fixed.
  It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, 
spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.

  So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

Re: [AFMUG] IP Architects

[can...@believewireless.net]

I noticed the same thing. Not happy at all.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Sterling Jacobson 
wrote:

> So far, not so good with them.
>
> I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify one
> temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
> Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out on
> BGP/eBGP and OSPF.
>
> That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic re-routed,
> but left me with a bunch of other problems.
>
> When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.
>
> I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being the
> top experts.
>
> I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that
> permanently fixed.
> It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment,
> spending hours of my money, to understand the problem.
>
> So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[Lewis Bergman]

I don't remember saying anything about fiber vs wifi. As for the  cheese, I
would argue yes. Those bonds don't magically pay themselves. They are paid
off of taxes, they have to show them segmented but still taxes pay them.

I have never seen a government service run as well as a privately run one.
At least as far as a true service that one pays for and expects some
service in return. Maybe others have a different experience.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:31 AM  wrote:

> According to reports they are building a muni fiber network, not a Muni
> WiFi network. Is it also gubment cheese if they are borrowing money by
> bonding?
>
>
> Jared
>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017
> > From: "Lewis Bergman" 
> > To: "Animal Farm" 
> > Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
> >
> > I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
> >
> > *Colorado*
> > *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> > Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> > internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> > <
> http://insidetowers.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d1b803ea3d99f4c1c1335a213=0b96ba638b=cc20c00449
> >—is
> > considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop
> its
> > own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> > reports *Community
> > Networks.*
> >
> > The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> > would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> > provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> > municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure,
> which
> > could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
> >
> > In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> > Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> > providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> > chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities
> from
> > building out their own networks.
> >
> > Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents
> favor
> > the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through
> the
> > city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> > Networks* that
> > voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> > question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> > around to do it yet?’”
> >
>

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

We would not be doing DIDs. And we collect and pay the E911 fees as well as 
keep the MSAG database current for the customers.  

From: Eric Kuhnke 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Faisal is pretty accurate on the costs. The E911 for each individual subscriber 
and getting the address registered properly will be a big part of the MRC for 
each DID, and is something you definitely need to get right so that people 
don't die. 



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

  @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the 
whole picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum 
commits are taken into account.

  Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup,  and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.

  At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change.

  In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be 
accurate, and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion 
of the actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e.  
how many codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the 
network connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks 
like.

  Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the 
call control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on 
the network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call 
control traffic.

  It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies  of VOIP, what affects it 
and how to identify them.

  We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes 
sense.


  Regards

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

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


--

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:17:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

We have no idea how many will want this.  Currently we have over 5K on 
pots. 
We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range.  They are 
already serving some of our other areas.
I figured if I could VLAN it to a local provider the quality ought to be 
perfect. 

From: Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this..

Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ?

Regards.

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL 
tariff.  Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we need a 
non regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment.

  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you 
are looking for such ?

  i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived 
convenience issue ?

  We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.

  Regards.

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

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


--

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I 
would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.

We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local.

So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Eric Kuhnke]

Faisal is pretty accurate on the costs. The E911 for each individual
subscriber and getting the address registered properly will be a big part
of the MRC for each DID, and is something you definitely need to get right
so that people don't die.



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the
> whole picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum
> commits are taken into account.
>
> Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID
> lookup,  and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes &
> fees along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.
>
> At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs
> 1000 subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between
> doing the flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage
> will start to change.
>
> In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be
> accurate, and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small
> portion of the actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers
> setup, i.e.  how many codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path,
> and what is the network connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or
> Sonus/ACME Switch path looks like.
>
> Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the
> call control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent
> on the network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call
> control traffic.
>
> It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies  of VOIP, what affects
> it and how to identify them.
>
> We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes
> sense.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:17:31 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> We have no idea how many will want this.  Currently we have over 5K on
> pots.
> We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range.  They are
> already serving some of our other areas.
> I figured if I could VLAN it to a local provider the quality ought to be
> perfect.
>
> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:00 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this..
>
> Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ?
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL
> tariff.  Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we
> need a non regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated
> equipment.
>
> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you
> are looking for such ?
>
> i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience
> issue ?
>
> We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core
> issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working
> arrangement.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I
> would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.
>
> We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local.
>
> So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Mike Hammett]

Right. I specifically mentioned ILECs as an exemption. Few others do. I would 
imagine more minutes flow through non-legacy at some point than flow through 
legacy exclusively. That's a pretty safe bet. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:47:59 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 




Well, I am an ILEC and all traffic is via trunks to the tandem. All SS7. We all 
have NECA meet point billing arrangements and NECA tariffs and the traffic 
flows over the legacy network so we all get our access payments. 

If you get a check from NECA or USAC you are probably not doing much VOIP 
except for a non regulated outbound LD service. 




From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:44 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


Sure it is, but if it leaves an ILEC, it's probably going VoIP. There's a lot 
of calls made over cable, cellular, OTT VoIP, etc. that are only old-school for 
as little as they have to be. 

There are even fully VoIP-enabled competitive tandems out there explicitly for 
bypassing legacy tandems. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:41:30 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 




You would be surprised as to how many 5ESS are still in service. The SS7 
network is as alive and well as ever. 




From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:38 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


Much of the PSTN is no longer a bunch of DSxs, but VoIP. Sure, anything 
connected to the tandem is DSx, but beyond that, little of it is aside from 
POTS. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:34:50 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 




Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high. 

I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry. 
So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of 
connection. 

If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be 
jitter or latency. 

So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional tandem 
if I can get it. 

I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and 
connections. But there is no money in it for me to go to that work. 




From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 



>>>i f the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high 

Yes, sort off 

Explanation:- 
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)... 

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ... 

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD. 

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end. 
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine... 

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from Codec Conversions 
(especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter  latency 
tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing factor, but these 
days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two IP Transit 
Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports). 

Regards 

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

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



From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 








If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to the 
tandem, the quality should be pretty high. Better than using best-effort public 
routing to the gateway. 

But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable. 




From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM 
To: 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

Well, I am an ILEC and all traffic is via trunks to the tandem.  All SS7.  We 
all have NECA meet point billing arrangements and NECA tariffs and the traffic 
flows over the legacy network so we all get our access payments.  

If you get a check from NECA or USAC you are probably not doing much VOIP 
except for a non regulated outbound LD service.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Sure it is, but if it leaves an ILEC, it's probably going VoIP. There's a lot 
of calls made over cable, cellular, OTT VoIP, etc. that are only old-school for 
as little as they have to be.

There are even fully VoIP-enabled competitive tandems out there explicitly for 
bypassing legacy tandems.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:41:30 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers


You would be surprised as to how many 5ESS are still in service.  The SS7 
network is as alive and well as ever.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:38 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Much of the PSTN is no longer a bunch of DSxs, but VoIP. Sure, anything 
connected to the tandem is DSx, but beyond that, little of it is aside from 
POTS.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:34:50 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers


Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high.  

I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry.  
So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of 
connection.  

If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be 
jitter or latency.  

So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional tandem 
if I can get it.  

I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and 
connections.  But there is no money in it for me to go to that work.  

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>>>if the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high

Yes, sort off

Explanation:-
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)...

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ...

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection  gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD.

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end.
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine...

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from  Codec 
Conversions (especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter 
 latency tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing 
factor, but these days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two 
IP Transit Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports).

Regards

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
the tandem, the quality should be pretty high.  Better than using best-effort 
public routing to the gateway. 

  But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable. 

  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the 
whole picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum 
commits are taken into account.

  Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup,  and the rest would be used for mou's, I am 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Mike Hammett]

Sure it is, but if it leaves an ILEC, it's probably going VoIP. There's a lot 
of calls made over cable, cellular, OTT VoIP, etc. that are only old-school for 
as little as they have to be. 

There are even fully VoIP-enabled competitive tandems out there explicitly for 
bypassing legacy tandems. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:41:30 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 




You would be surprised as to how many 5ESS are still in service. The SS7 
network is as alive and well as ever. 




From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:38 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


Much of the PSTN is no longer a bunch of DSxs, but VoIP. Sure, anything 
connected to the tandem is DSx, but beyond that, little of it is aside from 
POTS. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:34:50 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 




Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high. 

I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry. 
So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of 
connection. 

If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be 
jitter or latency. 

So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional tandem 
if I can get it. 

I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and 
connections. But there is no money in it for me to go to that work. 




From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 



>>>i f the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high 

Yes, sort off 

Explanation:- 
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)... 

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ... 

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD. 

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end. 
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine... 

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from Codec Conversions 
(especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter  latency 
tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing factor, but these 
days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two IP Transit 
Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports). 

Regards 

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

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



From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 








If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to the 
tandem, the quality should be pretty high. Better than using best-effort public 
routing to the gateway. 

But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable. 




From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 



@ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the whole 
picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum commits 
are taken into account. 

Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup, and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7. 

At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change. 

In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be accurate, 
and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion of the 
actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e. how many 
codec conversions are 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

You would be surprised as to how many 5ESS are still in service.  The SS7 
network is as alive and well as ever.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:38 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Much of the PSTN is no longer a bunch of DSxs, but VoIP. Sure, anything 
connected to the tandem is DSx, but beyond that, little of it is aside from 
POTS.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:34:50 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers


Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high.  

I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry.  
So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of 
connection.  

If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be 
jitter or latency.  

So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional tandem 
if I can get it.  

I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and 
connections.  But there is no money in it for me to go to that work.  

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>>>if the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high

Yes, sort off

Explanation:-
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)...

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ...

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection  gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD.

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end.
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine...

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from  Codec 
Conversions (especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter 
 latency tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing 
factor, but these days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two 
IP Transit Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports).

Regards

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
the tandem, the quality should be pretty high.  Better than using best-effort 
public routing to the gateway. 

  But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable. 

  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the 
whole picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum 
commits are taken into account.

  Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup,  and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.

  At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change.

  In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be 
accurate, and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion 
of the actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e.  
how many codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the 
network connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks 
like.

  Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the 
call control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on 
the network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call 
control traffic.

  It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies  of VOIP, what affects it 
and how to identify them.

  We 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Mike Hammett]

Much of the PSTN is no longer a bunch of DSxs, but VoIP. Sure, anything 
connected to the tandem is DSx, but beyond that, little of it is aside from 
POTS. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:34:50 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 




Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high. 

I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry. 
So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of 
connection. 

If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be 
jitter or latency. 

So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional tandem 
if I can get it. 

I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and 
connections. But there is no money in it for me to go to that work. 




From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 



>>>i f the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high 

Yes, sort off 

Explanation:- 
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)... 

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ... 

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD. 

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end. 
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine... 

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from Codec Conversions 
(especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter  latency 
tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing factor, but these 
days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two IP Transit 
Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports). 

Regards 

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

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



From: "Chuck McCown"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 








If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to the 
tandem, the quality should be pretty high. Better than using best-effort public 
routing to the gateway. 

But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable. 




From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 



@ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the whole 
picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum commits 
are taken into account. 

Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup, and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7. 

At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change. 

In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be accurate, 
and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion of the 
actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e. how many 
codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the network 
connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks like. 

Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the call 
control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on the 
network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call control 
traffic. 

It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies of VOIP, what affects it and 
how to identify them. 

We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes 
sense. 


Regards 

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

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



From: "Chuck McCown" 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

Once it hits the PSTN the quality is high and stays high.  

I have spent the last 38 years working for the regulated side of the industry.  
So I am biased, however hard to argue against SS7/DS0 for speed and quality of 
connection.  

If it is G.711/DS0 full rate PCM from one end to the other there will not be 
jitter or latency.  

So that I way I want VLAN to SIP gateway that is connected to a regional tandem 
if I can get it.  

I can create this myself, I already have rack space, colocation, transport and 
connections.  But there is no money in it for me to go to that work.  

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:27 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>>>if the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high

Yes, sort off

Explanation:-
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)...

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ...

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection  gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD.

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end.
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine...

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from  Codec 
Conversions (especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter 
 latency tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing 
factor, but these days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two 
IP Transit Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports).

Regards

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
the tandem, the quality should be pretty high.  Better than using best-effort 
public routing to the gateway. 

  But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable. 

  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the 
whole picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum 
commits are taken into account.

  Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup,  and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.

  At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change.

  In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be 
accurate, and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion 
of the actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e.  
how many codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the 
network connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks 
like.

  Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the 
call control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on 
the network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call 
control traffic.

  It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies  of VOIP, what affects it 
and how to identify them.

  We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes 
sense.


  Regards

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

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


--

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:17:31 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

We have no idea how many will want this.  Currently we have over 5K on pots.
We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range.  They are 
already serving some of our other areas.
I 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

>>>i f the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to 
>>>the tandem, the quality should be pretty high 

Yes, sort off 

Explanation:- 
There are two legs to every call... one leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Customer CPE, and the second leg would be from the "switch" or 
"Proxy" to the Voice Gateway (VOIP to TDM)... 

Making sure that the network connection is clean and of high quality on both 
legs will add to the quality, along with the Codec Conversion ... 

Making sure that the 2nd leg is of high quality network connection gets more 
challenging to do when terminating Nation Wide LD. 

VOIP / TDM Gateways are becoming less and less, since more and more the the 
Telco's are using Sonus Switches, thus keeping VOIP as packets end to end. 
Most of the larger public network connectivity on Fiber (as you pointed out) is 
of high quality and as long as it is congestion free it is just fine... 

In our experience, most of the voice issues tend to come from Codec Conversions 
(especially when they are done multiple times) and or High Jitter  latency 
tends not to be an issue... (Packet loss can be a prevailing factor, but these 
days it is becoming more rare, unless you are traversing two IP Transit 
Providers who have over subscribed interconnection ports). 

Regards 

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

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

> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 12:14:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

> If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to the
> tandem, the quality should be pretty high. Better than using best-effort 
> public
> routing to the gateway.
> But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
> well,
> it may not be a difference that would be noticeable.
> From: Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
> @ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the 
> whole
> picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum commits
> are taken into account.
> Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID
> lookup, and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees
> along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.
> At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000
> subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the
> flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to
> change.
> In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be 
> accurate,
> and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion of the
> actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e. how 
> many
> codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the network
> connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks like.
> Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the 
> call
> control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on the
> network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call control
> traffic.
> It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies of VOIP, what affects it and
> how to identify them.
> We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes 
> sense.
> Regards
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:17:31 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>> We have no idea how many will want this. Currently we have over 5K on pots.
>> We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range. They are already
>> serving some of our other areas.
>> I figured if I could VLAN it to a local provider the quality ought to be
>> perfect.
>> From: Faisal Imtiaz
>> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:00 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>> Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this..
>> Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ?
>> Regards.
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

>>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>>> We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff. 
>>> Some
>>> of those people will still want telephone service. So we need a non 
>>> 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

If the VLAN covered from the POTS to the SIP gateway that was connected to the 
tandem, the quality should be pretty high.  Better than using best-effort 
public routing to the gateway.  

But since everything is fiber these days and everything tends to work very 
well, it may not be a difference that would be noticeable.  

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:10 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

@ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the whole 
picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum commits 
are taken into account.

Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup,  and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7.

At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change.

In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be accurate, 
and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion of the 
actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e.  how 
many codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the 
network connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks 
like.

Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the call 
control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on the 
network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call control 
traffic.

It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies  of VOIP, what affects it and 
how to identify them.

We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes sense.


Regards

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:17:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  We have no idea how many will want this.  Currently we have over 5K on pots. 
  We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range.  They are 
already serving some of our other areas.
  I figured if I could VLAN it to a local provider the quality ought to be 
perfect. 

  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:00 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this..

  Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ?

  Regards.

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

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


--

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff.  
Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we need a non 
regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment.

From: Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are 
looking for such ?

i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
issue ?

We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.

Regards.

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I 
would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.

  We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local.

  So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

@ $7 is a decent price for this type of service, keeping in mind that the whole 
picture could be different once the one time charges and any minimum commits 
are taken into account. 

Figure about $3-$4 per sub as a 'cost' of platform. $1 for DID + Caller ID 
lookup, and the rest would be used for mou's, I am assuming that taxes & fees 
along with E911 charges would be over and above the $7. 

At the end of the day it is going to be about Volume, i.e. 100 subs vs 1000 
subs, somewhere about $2500-3k/month spending the balance between doing the 
flat rate style arrangement vs taking the risk on mou arbitrage will start to 
change. 

In regards to a 'local' provider, vlan providing quality would not be accurate, 
and quite possibly a myth. It only would address a very small portion of the 
actual path.. The quality greatly depends on the providers setup, i.e. how many 
codec conversions are taking place in the Voice path, and what is the network 
connectivity to the VOIP to TDM gateway or Sonus/ACME Switch path looks like. 

Folks commonly mistake in looking at the network path to the Proxy, or the call 
control data path, while the actual quality of the Voice is dependent on the 
network path of the Voice traffic, which is not the same as the call control 
traffic. 

It has taken a long time to learn the intricacies of VOIP, what affects it and 
how to identify them. 

We will be more than happy to work with you on this project of that makes 
sense. 

Regards 

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

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

> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 11:17:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

> We have no idea how many will want this. Currently we have over 5K on pots.
> We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range. They are already
> serving some of our other areas.
> I figured if I could VLAN it to a local provider the quality ought to be
> perfect.
> From: Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:00 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
> Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this..
> Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ?
> Regards.
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>> We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff. 
>> Some
>> of those people will still want telephone service. So we need a non regulated
>> VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment.
>> From: Faisal Imtiaz
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>> Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are
>> looking for such ?
>> i.e. a regulatory issue ? A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
>> issue ?
>> We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
>> issue
>> you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.
>> Regards.
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

>>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>>> I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah. I would
>>> port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.
>>> We need unlimited LD and solid 911. Would prefer someone local.
>>> So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.

[AFMUG] IP Architects

[Sterling Jacobson]

So far, not so good with them.

I've spent about $340 for an hour and a half time to have them modify one 
temporary route rule in fifteen seconds.
Rest of the time appeared to be them attempting to figure things out on 
BGP/eBGP and OSPF.

That didn't fix my problem, just a patch to get some traffic re-routed, but 
left me with a bunch of other problems.

When I asked them about the charge, they wouldn't work with me.

I expect a lot more out of a team that charges top dollar for being the top 
experts.

I'm having problems communicating and scheduling time now to get that 
permanently fixed.
It appears they want to create an entire lab with separate equipment, spending 
hours of my money, to understand the problem.

So, yeah, not what I was expecting out of them at all.

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

Yes, there is zero technical, engineering or financial reason to do this.  100% 
regulatory.  

From: Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:21 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

I guess that explains why you can't use your equipment or something directly 
attached. You are looking to segment off for regulatory reasons. Ahhhthe 
wonderful world of telecom.


On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:47 AM Chuck McCown  wrote:

  We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff.  
Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we need a non 
regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment.  

  From: Faisal Imtiaz 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
  Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are 
looking for such ? 

  i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
issue ? 

  We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.

  Regards.

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

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


--

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I 
would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider. 

We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local. 

So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there. 

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[fiberrun]

According to reports they are building a muni fiber network, not a Muni WiFi 
network. Is it also gubment cheese if they are borrowing money by bonding?


Jared

> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 
> From: "Lewis Bergman" 
> To: "Animal Farm" 
> Subject: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi
>
> I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
> 
> *Colorado*
> *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> —is
> considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
> own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
> reports *Community
> Networks.*
> 
> The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
> could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
> 
> In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
> building out their own networks.
> 
> Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
> the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
> city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> Networks* that
> voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
> question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
> around to do it yet?’”
>

[AFMUG] epmp 3.3 5ghz disconnects

[Steve Jones]

we ran this for a bit, no noteable issues, but now seem to be having more
frequent disconnects, even on good links, is this a firmware issue others
are seeing?
It appears the sm drops when a load is applied. one thing I'm seeing is
theyre not modulating down much when idle and lots of broadcast traffic on
the counters, like 80-90 percent is bc

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Lewis Bergman]

I guess that explains why you can't use your equipment or something
directly attached. You are looking to segment off for regulatory reasons.
Ahhhthe wonderful world of telecom.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:47 AM Chuck McCown  wrote:

> We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL
> tariff.  Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we
> need a non regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated
> equipment.
>
> *From:* Faisal Imtiaz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
> Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you
> are looking for such ?
>
> i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience
> issue ?
>
> We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core
> issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working
> arrangement.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 <(305)%20663-5518> x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 <(305)%20663-5518> Option 2 or Email:
> supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I
> would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.
>
>
> We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local.
>
> So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Mike Hammett]

You still don't understand what's happening here. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:17:51 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


Well...Have fun porting 10K numbers. I didn't know anyone would port that many. 



On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM Chuck McCown < ch...@wbmfg.com > wrote: 






We would just be porting, not moving an NXX. 




From: Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:36 PM 






To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 








Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you don't know whay your talking about in this 
specific instance. Maybe I don't. I am betting just this once it's you. Unless 
you have been a carrier in a remote rate center trying to get those NXX's 
somewhere else you may not be aware how this works. 




You can't port an NXX. You have to modify the LERG and assign those numbers to 
a different CLI. You can't, or at least didn't use to be able to do that, 
without paying transport fees. Last time I tried it they refused, as is their 
right, to do it with anything other than T1's or DS3 which they would happily 
sell me. Of course I think Chuck would only have to pay the part of the circuit 
outside his rate center. 
In short, if you want to send an NXX somewhere, hook some Adtran boxes to your 
class 5 and route the NXX to it then send them wherever you like. That's the 
easiest solution and likely the cheapest long term. 
Voip is way easier than circuit switched. I don't know why Chuck doesn't just 
get some voip solution and did it himself. Freepbx, NetSapiens, ipifony, 
Dialogic. There are so many. 
Ten again maybe your just sick of the distraction which I can completely 
understand. 






On Wed, May 31, 2017, 8:11 PM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 









He's not asking for anything special, other than the ratecenter he wants 
covered. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 








From: "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 



Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:37:36 PM 



Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


NetSapiens does software. We have about 25 NXX's assigned to us. There is no 
way a standard voip provider can do what you want Chuck. You have to have 
somebody with an A-Z code and class 5 switch like you have. You then have to 
reassign that block to that switch. You then have to route that to something 
that can turn it into voip. Your switch can I guess, I am sure you know. If 
outside your LATA you have to pay mileage. I think you are the only one in your 
LATA right? 
Anyway. Call me If you want to talk about it Chuck. I saw someone on a voip 
list asking how to do this and describing your exact circumstances. I am 
guessing you talked to someone about it today. 





On Wed, May 31, 2017, 11:20 AM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 








NetSapiens does equipment, not service. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 








From: "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:10:23 AM 



Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


CTI uses NetSapiens as do some others. They are a bit more expensive than some 
alternatives but if they do what they said they would do (handle 100% of all 
porting) that can be worth a bit depending on how big an ass your losing 
carrier wants to be. If this is going to be a main revenue source I would tell 
you to go ahead and go direct to NS. If not, probably a pretty good deal. 
Others on this list, Like Chuck Bender, might make you a better deal depending 
on what you want. 

I don't do any residential but a key to VoIP success up front is to limit the 
number of devices you support. I choose to only support 3 phones and one fax. I 
don't do ATA's at all. Trunks I handle with Adtran only. 








On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:58 AM Kurt Fankhauser < lists.wavel...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 







I am using the CTI white label solution and it is very reliable, biggest plus 
is no hardware and servers to maintain in my office. Its all cloud based. 


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Rory Conaway < r...@triadwireless.net > 
wrote: 


I waited for Ooma since last WISPAPALOOZA. Finally gave up and partnered with a 
company last week. 

Rory 



-Original Message- 
From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Rob Genovesi 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:48 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 

Ooma has launched a partnership programs with ISPs. It's not fully white label 
as it requires the customer to use Ooma equipment (which means you can't use 
your own ATA). An interesting option for anyone looking to add VOIP service 
without any overhead. 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Lewis Bergman]

Well...Have fun porting 10K numbers. I didn't know anyone would port that
many.

On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM Chuck McCown  wrote:

> We would just be porting, not moving an NXX.
>
> *From:* Lewis Bergman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:36 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
>
> Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you don't know whay your talking about in
> this specific instance.  Maybe I don't.  I am betting just this once it's
> you. Unless you have been a carrier in a remote rate center trying to get
> those NXX's somewhere else you may not be aware how this works.
>
> You can't port an NXX. You have to modify the LERG and assign those
> numbers to a different CLI. You can't,  or at least didn't use to be able
> to do that, without paying transport fees.  Last time I tried it they
> refused, as is their right, to do it with anything other than T1's or DS3
> which they would happily sell me. Of course I think Chuck would only have
> to pay the part of the circuit outside his rate center.
>
> In short, if you want to send an NXX somewhere, hook some Adtran boxes to
> your class 5 and route the NXX to it then send them wherever you like.
> That's the easiest solution and likely the cheapest long term.
>
> Voip is way easier than circuit switched. I don't know why Chuck doesn't
> just get some voip solution and did it himself.  Freepbx, NetSapiens,
> ipifony, Dialogic. There are so many.
>
> Ten again maybe your just sick of the distraction which I can completely
> understand.
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017, 8:11 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> He's not asking for anything special, other than the ratecenter he wants
>> covered.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:37:36 PM
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>>
>> NetSapiens does software. We have about 25 NXX's assigned to us.  There
>> is no way a standard voip provider can do what you want Chuck.  You have to
>> have somebody with an A-Z code and class 5 switch like you have. You then
>> have to reassign that block to that switch.  You then have to route that to
>> something that can turn it into voip. Your switch can I guess, I am sure
>> you know.  If outside your LATA you have to pay mileage. I think you are
>> the only one in your LATA right?
>>
>> Anyway. Call me If you want to talk about it Chuck.  I saw someone on a
>> voip list asking how to do this and describing your exact circumstances.  I
>> am guessing you talked to someone about it today.
>>
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017, 11:20 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>>> NetSapiens does equipment, not service.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:10:23 AM
>>>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>>>
>>> CTI uses NetSapiens as do some others. They are a bit more expensive
>>> than some alternatives but if they do what they said they would do (handle
>>> 100% of all porting) that can be worth a bit depending on how big an ass
>>> your losing carrier wants to be. If this is going to be a main revenue
>>> source I would tell you to go ahead and go direct to NS. If not, probably a
>>> pretty good deal. Others on this list, Like Chuck Bender, might make you a
>>> better deal depending on what you want.
>>>
>>> I don't do any residential but a key to VoIP success up front is to
>>> limit the number of devices you support. I choose to only support 3 phones
>>> and one fax. I don't do 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

We have no idea how many will want this.  Currently we have over 5K on pots.  
We have a provider that is willing to do it in the $7 range.  They are already 
serving some of our other areas.
I figured if I could VLAN it to a local provider the quality ought to be 
perfect.  

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 9:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this.. 

Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ? 

Regards.

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff.  
Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we need a non 
regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment. 

  From: Faisal Imtiaz
  Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are 
looking for such ?

  i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
issue ?

  We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.

  Regards.

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

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


--

From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I 
would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.

We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local.

So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.

Re: [AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[Jason McKemie]

I'm sure that will work out well for them.

On Thursday, June 1, 2017, Lewis Bergman  wrote:

> I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese
>
> *Colorado*
> *Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
> Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
> internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
> —is
> considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
> own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility, reports 
> *Community
> Networks.*
>
> The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
> would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
> provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
> municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
> could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.
>
> In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
> Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
> providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
> chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
> building out their own networks.
>
> Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
> the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
> city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
> Networks* that voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens,
> really the main question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why
> haven’t you gotten around to do it yet?’”
>

[AFMUG] Muni WiFi

[Lewis Bergman]

I guess Coloradan's just can't get enough gubment cheese

*Colorado*
*Fort Collins Ponders Build-Out of Its Own ISP Using Public Utilities*
Oftentimes, municipalities will partner with private ISPs to provide
internet service as a public utility. But one Colorado city—Fort Collins
—is
considering a ballot initiative that would give it authority to develop its
own internet network through the city’s Light and Power Utility,
reports *Community
Networks.*

The ballot initiative, which would be voted on this upcoming November,
would change the city charter to enable the Light and Power Utility to
provide internet service. It may also ask voters to consent to allowing
municipal bonds to fund the build-out of the network infrastructure, which
could cost an estimated $125 to $140 million.

In 2015, the city’s partnership with the private, Canadian-owned company
Axia fell through, prompting the municipality to weigh other options for
providing a municipal-wide network. That same year, 83 percent of voters
chose to opt out of SB 152, which discouraged Colorado municipalities from
building out their own networks.

Local public officials have cited this vote as a sign that residents favor
the build-out of a locally owned and operated network, provided through the
city government. City Council member Ross Cunniff told *Community
Networks* that
voters are more than ready. “When I talk to citizens, really the main
question on their minds isn’t ‘should we?’ It’s, ‘Why haven’t you gotten
around to do it yet?’”

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Fair enough, that explains why you are looking for this.. 

Care to share Price Target ? and Qty / Volume commit ? 

Regards. 

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

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

> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:47:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

> We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff. 
> Some
> of those people will still want telephone service. So we need a non regulated
> VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment.
> From: Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
> Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are
> looking for such ?
> i.e. a regulatory issue ? A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
> issue ?
> We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core issue
> you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.
> Regards.
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

>> From: "Chuck McCown" 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>> I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah. I would
>> port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.
>> We need unlimited LD and solid 911. Would prefer someone local.
>> So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Thanks Jeff. 

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

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

> From: "Jeff Broadwick - Lists" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 6:40:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

> Happy Birthday Faisal!

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

> On May 31, 2017, at 11:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz < fai...@snappytelecom.net > 
> wrote:

>> Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are
>> looking for such ?

>> i.e. a regulatory issue ? A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
>> issue ?

>> We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
>> issue
>> you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.

>> Regards.

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

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

>>> From: "Chuck McCown" < ch...@wbmfg.com >
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
>>> Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

>>> I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah. I would
>>> port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.
>>> We need unlimited LD and solid 911. Would prefer someone local.
>>> So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.

Re: [AFMUG] We don't need no stinkin' batteries no mo'

[Chuck McCown]

Can you recover the silver?

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 7:54 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] We don't need no stinkin' batteries no mo'

Continuous-duty energy out with zero energy in has been achieved in the BRLP 
laboratories and is pending independent replication.

http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-053117.pdf

 

Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

602-426-0542

r...@triadwireless.net

www.triadwireless.net

 

“I think I throw the ball as hard as anyone. The ball just doesn't get there as 
fast.” — Eddie Bane

 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

We are starting to offer stand alone broadband under the neca CBOL tariff.  
Some of those people will still want telephone service.  So we need a non 
regulated VOIP product that will not traverse our regulated equipment.  

From: Faisal Imtiaz 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:30 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are 
looking for such ? 

i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
issue ? 

We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core issue 
you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.

Regards.

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

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




  From: "Chuck McCown" 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
  Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

  I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I would 
port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider. 

  We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local. 

  So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there. 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Chuck McCown]

We would just be porting, not moving an NXX.  

From: Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you don't know whay your talking about in this 
specific instance.  Maybe I don't.  I am betting just this once it's you. 
Unless you have been a carrier in a remote rate center trying to get those 
NXX's somewhere else you may not be aware how this works. 

You can't port an NXX. You have to modify the LERG and assign those numbers to 
a different CLI. You can't,  or at least didn't use to be able to do that, 
without paying transport fees.  Last time I tried it they refused, as is their 
right, to do it with anything other than T1's or DS3 which they would happily 
sell me. Of course I think Chuck would only have to pay the part of the circuit 
outside his rate center. 

In short, if you want to send an NXX somewhere, hook some Adtran boxes to your 
class 5 and route the NXX to it then send them wherever you like. That's the 
easiest solution and likely the cheapest long term.

Voip is way easier than circuit switched. I don't know why Chuck doesn't just 
get some voip solution and did it himself.  Freepbx, NetSapiens, ipifony, 
Dialogic. There are so many. 

Ten again maybe your just sick of the distraction which I can completely 
understand. 



On Wed, May 31, 2017, 8:11 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

  He's not asking for anything special, other than the ratecenter he wants 
covered.





  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Lewis Bergman" 
  To: af@afmug.com

  Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:37:36 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers


  NetSapiens does software. We have about 25 NXX's assigned to us.  There is no 
way a standard voip provider can do what you want Chuck.  You have to have 
somebody with an A-Z code and class 5 switch like you have. You then have to 
reassign that block to that switch.  You then have to route that to something 
that can turn it into voip. Your switch can I guess, I am sure you know.  If 
outside your LATA you have to pay mileage. I think you are the only one in your 
LATA right? 

  Anyway. Call me If you want to talk about it Chuck.  I saw someone on a voip 
list asking how to do this and describing your exact circumstances.  I am 
guessing you talked to someone about it today. 



  On Wed, May 31, 2017, 11:20 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

NetSapiens does equipment, not service.





-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Lewis Bergman" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 11:10:23 AM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers


CTI uses NetSapiens as do some others. They are a bit more expensive than 
some alternatives but if they do what they said they would do (handle 100% of 
all porting) that can be worth a bit depending on how big an ass your losing 
carrier wants to be. If this is going to be a main revenue source I would tell 
you to go ahead and go direct to NS. If not, probably a pretty good deal. 
Others on this list, Like Chuck Bender, might make you a better deal depending 
on what you want. 

I don't do any residential but a key to VoIP success up front is to limit 
the number of devices you support. I choose to only support 3 phones and one 
fax. I don't do ATA's at all. Trunks I handle with Adtran only.



On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:58 AM Kurt Fankhauser  
wrote:

  I am using the CTI white label solution and it is very reliable, biggest 
plus is no hardware and servers to maintain in my office. Its all cloud based.

  On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Rory Conaway  
wrote:

I waited for Ooma since last WISPAPALOOZA.  Finally gave up and 
partnered with a company last week.

Rory


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rob Genovesi
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:48 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

Ooma has launched a partnership programs with ISPs.  It's not fully 
white label as it requires the customer to use Ooma equipment (which means you 
can't use your own ATA).  An interesting option for anyone looking to add VOIP 
service without any overhead.

We're not doing this (yet) but have talked to Ooma a few times.  If you 
want more info contact Tim Sullivan: tim.sulli...@ooma.com.



Rob Genovesi • Coastside.Net • Owner
650-712-5900 • 525B Obispo Rd • Half Moon Bay CA


On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:44 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Robert Haas]

We've been looking at Toly: https://www.tolydigital.net/ 

https://www.tolydigital.net/products-services/voip-services-get-ahead-of-you
r-competition-with-flexible-options/

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 4:45 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

 

I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I
would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider.  

 

We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local.  

 

So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there.  

[AFMUG] We don't need no stinkin' batteries no mo'

[Rory Conaway]

Continuous-duty energy out with zero energy in has been achieved in the BRLP 
laboratories and is pending independent replication.

http://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-053117.pdf

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

"I think I throw the ball as hard as anyone. The ball just doesn't get there as 
fast." - Eddie Bane

Re: [AFMUG] CAT6/6 LAN WAN testers

[Jaime Solorza]

Certifier40 is one I saw used by cabling outfit in Midlandnot sure on
price

On Jun 1, 2017 6:57 AM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> If you find one which mere mortals can afford that also works through a
> set of ethernet magnetics, please let me know.
>
> -forrest
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Looking for a 10/100/1000 tester that will do NEXT, FEXT, capacitance,
>> CRC BER etc etc.
>> Used to use an EXFO for this but that tester is gone and my Ideal tester
>> is lacking a few parameters.
>> Looking over the EXFO website, there are way too many units and most of
>> them have a fiber focus.
>>
>> Anybody have a favorite they would recommend?
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *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] VOIP Providers

[Jaime Solorza]

Happy Birthday...

On Jun 1, 2017 6:52 AM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I read it. Multiple times. I may be a bit rusty on some aspects, but let's
> break it down.
>
>
> "I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah."
> Yes, that's the complicated part. He can't just go to any random VoIP
> provider and expect his area to be covered. Non-RBOCs are inherently
> difficult to work with on the voice side, so most VoIP providers have
> skipped those areas. It's entirely possible they have an exemption from
> porting. The first indication that this may be a difficult prospect is:
> https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-
> ratecenter-state?ratecenter=EAGLE%20MTN=UT There is no one else in
> that rate center, so it's proven enough of a difficulty where no one has
> gotten their own allocation from NANPA.
>
> "I would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider."
> Not exactly a requirement, but a good rule of thumb is that if a CLEC is
> present in a rate center that has local calling to that one, you can port
> the number. http://localcallingguide.com/lca_exch.php?exch=200852 I don't
> know much about Utah, but I recognize the town of Provo, so I'm going to
> guess that someone is located in Provo that would be a local call form
> Cedar Valley. Unfortunately, TelcoData.Us doesn't have the tandem
> information for Direct Communication's switch, so we can't look up what
> other rate centers are off of that tandem to provide further clues as to
> who may be able to port. I didn't read this as he wants to move the entire
> NPA-NXX to another provider (which there are people that do hosted
> switches), but that he wanted to port select numbers to the VoIP provider.
>
> "We need unlimited LD and solid 911."
> Shouldn't be difficult.
>
> "Would prefer someone local."
> There are several CLECs listed in Provo, including the regulars of Onvoy,
> Bandwidth.com, Level 3, etc. so you should be able to find someone
> somewhere. Your other Utah-area operators should be able to say who they
> use for VoIP. Then just look for whichever of them has a gateway in the SLC
> area. They may be hauling back to Seattle or the bay area, both for TDM and
> for IP so you may be looking for whomever has the gateway in those markets.
>
> "So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there."
> I've heard of the company, but obviously those in Utah can better speak to
> their capabilities and reliability.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Lewis Bergman" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:36:05 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
>
> Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you don't know whay your talking about in
> this specific instance.  Maybe I don't.  I am betting just this once it's
> you. Unless you have been a carrier in a remote rate center trying to get
> those NXX's somewhere else you may not be aware how this works.
>
> You can't port an NXX. You have to modify the LERG and assign those
> numbers to a different CLI. You can't,  or at least didn't use to be able
> to do that, without paying transport fees.  Last time I tried it they
> refused, as is their right, to do it with anything other than T1's or DS3
> which they would happily sell me. Of course I think Chuck would only have
> to pay the part of the circuit outside his rate center.
>
> In short, if you want to send an NXX somewhere, hook some Adtran boxes to
> your class 5 and route the NXX to it then send them wherever you like.
> That's the easiest solution and likely the cheapest long term.
>
> Voip is way easier than circuit switched. I don't know why Chuck doesn't
> just get some voip solution and did it himself.  Freepbx, NetSapiens,
> ipifony, Dialogic. There are so many.
>
> Ten again maybe your just sick of the distraction which I can completely
> understand.
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017, 8:11 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> He's not asking for anything special, other than the ratecenter he wants
>> covered.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Mike Hammett]

I read it. Multiple times. I may be a bit rusty on some aspects, but let's 
break it down. 


"I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah." 
Yes, that's the complicated part. He can't just go to any random VoIP provider 
and expect his area to be covered. Non-RBOCs are inherently difficult to work 
with on the voice side, so most VoIP providers have skipped those areas. It's 
entirely possible they have an exemption from porting. The first indication 
that this may be a difficult prospect is: 
https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-by-ratecenter-state?ratecenter=EAGLE%20MTN=UT
 There is no one else in that rate center, so it's proven enough of a 
difficulty where no one has gotten their own allocation from NANPA. 

"I would port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider." 
Not exactly a requirement, but a good rule of thumb is that if a CLEC is 
present in a rate center that has local calling to that one, you can port the 
number. http://localcallingguide.com/lca_exch.php?exch=200852 I don't know much 
about Utah, but I recognize the town of Provo, so I'm going to guess that 
someone is located in Provo that would be a local call form Cedar Valley. 
Unfortunately, TelcoData.Us doesn't have the tandem information for Direct 
Communication's switch, so we can't look up what other rate centers are off of 
that tandem to provide further clues as to who may be able to port. I didn't 
read this as he wants to move the entire NPA-NXX to another provider (which 
there are people that do hosted switches), but that he wanted to port select 
numbers to the VoIP provider. 

"We need unlimited LD and solid 911." 
Shouldn't be difficult. 

"Would prefer someone local." 
There are several CLECs listed in Provo, including the regulars of Onvoy, 
Bandwidth.com, Level 3, etc. so you should be able to find someone somewhere. 
Your other Utah-area operators should be able to say who they use for VoIP. 
Then just look for whichever of them has a gateway in the SLC area. They may be 
hauling back to Seattle or the bay area, both for TDM and for IP so you may be 
looking for whomever has the gateway in those markets. 

"So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there." 
I've heard of the company, but obviously those in Utah can better speak to 
their capabilities and reliability. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Lewis Bergman"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:36:05 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


Maybe you didn't read it. Maybe you don't know whay your talking about in this 
specific instance. Maybe I don't. I am betting just this once it's you. Unless 
you have been a carrier in a remote rate center trying to get those NXX's 
somewhere else you may not be aware how this works. 
You can't port an NXX. You have to modify the LERG and assign those numbers to 
a different CLI. You can't, or at least didn't use to be able to do that, 
without paying transport fees. Last time I tried it they refused, as is their 
right, to do it with anything other than T1's or DS3 which they would happily 
sell me. Of course I think Chuck would only have to pay the part of the circuit 
outside his rate center. 
In short, if you want to send an NXX somewhere, hook some Adtran boxes to your 
class 5 and route the NXX to it then send them wherever you like. That's the 
easiest solution and likely the cheapest long term. 
Voip is way easier than circuit switched. I don't know why Chuck doesn't just 
get some voip solution and did it himself. Freepbx, NetSapiens, ipifony, 
Dialogic. There are so many. 
Ten again maybe your just sick of the distraction which I can completely 
understand. 


On Wed, May 31, 2017, 8:11 PM Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




He's not asking for anything special, other than the ratecenter he wants 
covered. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 








From: "Lewis Bergman" < lewis.berg...@gmail.com > 
To: af@afmug.com 



Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:37:36 PM 



Subject: Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers 


NetSapiens does software. We have about 25 NXX's assigned to us. There is no 
way a standard voip provider can do what you want Chuck. You have to have 
somebody with an A-Z code and class 5 switch like you have. You then have to 
reassign that block to that switch. You then have to route that to something 
that can turn it into voip. Your switch can I guess, I am sure you know. If 
outside your LATA you have to pay mileage. I think you are the only one in your 
LATA right? 
Anyway. Call me If you want to talk about it Chuck. I saw someone on a voip 
list asking how to do this and describing your exact circumstances. I am 
guessing you talked to someone about it today. 





On Wed, May 31, 2017, 11:20 AM Mike 

Re: [AFMUG] CAT6/6 LAN WAN testers

[Josh Reynolds]

If I was going to buy one now, that would be on the requirements list.

- Josh

On May 31, 2017 11:34 AM, "Sterling Jacobson"  wrote:

> I want one, but that can certify the newer standards of 2.5 and 5Ghz over
> Cat6.
>
>
>
> Anyone seen anything like that?
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:27 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CAT6/6 LAN WAN testers
>
>
>
> I will take a look at that.  Yes, GigE is needed.
>
>
>
> *From:* Lewis Bergman
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:22 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] CAT6/6 LAN WAN testers
>
>
>
> I have a Fluke DTX1800 that I like but it is a bit pricey. It certifies to
> gigE and that may be more than you want. If you have a customer that wnats
> a printed certification of building wiring it can be handy.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:02 AM Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> Looking for a 10/100/1000 tester that will do NEXT, FEXT, capacitance, CRC
> BER etc etc.
>
> Used to use an EXFO for this but that tester is gone and my Ideal tester
> is lacking a few parameters.
>
> Looking over the EXFO website, there are way too many units and most of
> them have a fiber focus.
>
>
>
> Anybody have a favorite they would recommend?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

Happy Birthday Faisal!

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

> On May 31, 2017, at 11:30 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:
> 
> Care to share on-list or off-list as to what is the core reason why you are 
> looking for such ? 
> 
> i.e.  a regulatory issue ?  A Technical Issue ? or a perceived convenience 
> issue ? 
> 
> We can easily provide you with such a service, but depending on the core 
> issue you are trying to solve it may or may not be a good working arrangement.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> From: "Chuck McCown" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 5:44:36 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] VOIP Providers
> I need a wholesale voip provider to serve my ILEC territory in Utah.  I would 
> port my local 801-789 numbers to the VOIP provider. 
>  
> We need unlimited LD and solid 911.  Would prefer someone local. 
>  
> So, before I give XMission a call I thought I would put this out there. 
>