Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Mike Hammett]

Marketing is the main thing I see. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Travis Johnson"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:19:57 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP 

And honestly, what benefits are you hoping to gain?? A single name? Better 
pricing on equipment? 

I'm not sure I understand what the ultimate goal would be, and if it would be 
worth the cost to "consolidate" hundreds or thousands of small companies. 

Things are different now than they were in the early cell days... or the early 
cable days (as Rise/JAB is discovering). It seems like KeyOn was trying to do 
something similar to this, even going public, before dying a slow and miserable 
death. 

Travis 



On 1/30/2018 8:04 PM, Jason McKemie wrote: 


I like the concept, it's going to be like herding cats though... 

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Brian Webster < i...@wirelessmapping.com > wrote: 





In this discussion should we have it, a history of the first cellular networks 
their evolution and when the industry started to explode would need to be laid 
out. Starting from the early 80’s on up through. This is important because as 
Gino has suggested, the WISP industry is following a very similar path and has 
always suffered from brand/product image, recognition and understanding. 
Cellular phones back then suffered the same problem. The word cellular was 
understood as a biology term by most. The term “Car Phones” was better 
understood and only those who had a lot of money had those and it was a party 
line system with no privacy. People had them out of extreme necessity only. The 
concept of anyone other than the phone company being able to deliver a phone 
service would not have ever seemed possible to a consumer. At that time the 
breakup of Ma Bell was just happening. A person could easily start a cellular 
network, no spectrum auctions back then. Just apply to the FCC and pay the 
license fees. 

Of an interesting side note, I had the opportunity to be working on a 
consulting project for AT in Portland Oregon years ago, we had to review 
leases, zoning approvals and other documents to determine if sites could be 
expanded and what work was required for same. Sometimes leases mentioned 
specific frequencies and antennas etc. so they might have to be renegotiated or 
modified to add data and new frequencies and antennas. In this process I had my 
hands on Craig McCaw’s first 4 cell tower leases on his first built cellular 
system. It was very cool to be holding that piece of history, his personal 
signature and all. Such an innovator that hadn’t hit his stride yet. 


Thank You, 
Brian Webster 
www.wirelessmapping.com 
www.Broadband-Mapping.com 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Brian Webster 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:42 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP 

I won’t be there. 


Thank You, 
Brian Webster 
www.wirelessmapping.com 
www.Broadband-Mapping.com 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP 


Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 



From: Af < af-boun...@afmug.com > on behalf of Brian Webster < 
i...@wirelessmapping.com > 
Reply-To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM 
To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP 




Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding 
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss. 


Thank You, 
Brian Webster 
www.wirelessmapping.com 
www.Broadband-Mapping.com 



From: Af [ mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP 


Hey Guys 



Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Travis Johnson]

And honestly, what benefits are you hoping to gain?? A single name? 
Better pricing on equipment?


I'm not sure I understand what the ultimate goal would be, and if it 
would be worth the cost to "consolidate" hundreds or thousands of small 
companies.


Things are different now than they were in the early cell days... or the 
early cable days (as Rise/JAB is discovering). It seems like KeyOn was 
trying to do something similar to this, even going public, before dying 
a slow and miserable death.


Travis


On 1/30/2018 8:04 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:

I like the concept, it's going to be like herding cats though...

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Brian Webster > wrote:


In this discussion should we have it, a history of the first
cellular networks their evolution and when the industry started to
explode would need to be laid out. Starting from the early 80’s on
up through. This is important because as Gino has suggested, the
WISP industry is following a very similar path and has always
suffered from brand/product image, recognition and understanding.
Cellular phones back then suffered the same problem. The word
cellular was understood as a biology term by most. The term “Car
Phones” was better understood and only those who had a lot of
money had those and it was a party line system with no privacy.
People had them out of extreme necessity only. The concept of
anyone other than the phone company being able to deliver a phone
service would not have ever seemed possible to a consumer. At that
time the breakup of Ma Bell was just happening. A person could
easily start a cellular network, no spectrum auctions back then.
Just apply to the FCC and pay the license fees.

Of an interesting side note, I had the opportunity to be working
on a consulting project for AT in Portland Oregon years ago, we
had to review leases, zoning approvals and other documents to
determine if sites could be expanded and what work was required
for same. Sometimes leases mentioned specific frequencies and
antennas etc. so they might have to be renegotiated or modified to
add data and new frequencies and antennas. In this process I had
my hands on Craig McCaw’s first 4 cell tower leases on his first
built cellular system. It was very cool to be holding that piece
of history, his personal signature and all. Such an innovator that
hadn’t hit his stride yet.

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com 

www.Broadband-Mapping.com 

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:42 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

I won’t be there.

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com 

www.Broadband-Mapping.com 

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A.
Villarini
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica?

*From: *Af > on
behalf of Brian Webster >
*Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com " >
*Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
*To: *"af@afmug.com " >
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year.
Craig McCaw really helped those independent operators when he
created a national branding for the A side cellular operators that
had to compete with the B side that were all the established
ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who wanted to
explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call
and discuss.

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com 

www.Broadband-Mapping.com 

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A.
Villarini
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Hey Guys

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think
this should be repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Jason McKemie]

I like the concept, it's going to be like herding cats though...

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Brian Webster 
wrote:

> In this discussion should we have it, a history of the first cellular
> networks their evolution and when the industry started to explode would
> need to be laid out.  Starting from the early 80’s on up through. This is
> important because as Gino has suggested, the WISP industry is following a
> very similar path and has always suffered from brand/product image,
> recognition and understanding. Cellular phones back then suffered the same
> problem. The word cellular was understood as a biology term by most. The
> term “Car Phones” was better understood and only those who had a lot of
> money had those and it was a party line system with no privacy. People had
> them out of extreme necessity only. The concept of anyone other than the
> phone company being able to deliver a phone service would not have ever
> seemed possible to a consumer. At that time the breakup of Ma Bell was just
> happening. A person could easily start a cellular network, no spectrum
> auctions back then. Just apply to the FCC and pay the license fees.
>
>
>
> Of an interesting side note, I had the opportunity to be working on a
> consulting project for AT in Portland Oregon years ago, we had to review
> leases, zoning approvals and other documents to determine if sites could be
> expanded and what work was required for same. Sometimes leases mentioned
> specific frequencies and antennas etc. so they might have to be
> renegotiated or modified to add data and new frequencies and antennas. In
> this process I had my hands on Craig McCaw’s first 4 cell tower leases on
> his first built cellular system. It was very cool to be holding that piece
> of history, his personal signature and all. Such an innovator that hadn’t
> hit his stride yet.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Brian Webster
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:42 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> I won’t be there.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica?
>
>
>
> *From: *Af  on behalf of Brian Webster <
> i...@wirelessmapping.com>
> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
> *To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw
> really helped those independent operators when he created a national
> branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B
> side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group
> of WISP’s who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a
> conference call and discuss.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> Hey Guys
>
>
>
> Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this
> should be repeated in the WISP industry?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Jaime Solorza]

Not me eithernever have been a lackey...

Jaime Solorza

On Jan 30, 2018 3:52 PM,  wrote:

> Well, the rest of the cool kids will be there.
>
> *From:* Brian Webster
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:42 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
> I won’t be there.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> 214 Eggleston Hill Rd.
>
> Cooperstown, NY 13326
>
> (607
> )
> 643-4055 Office
>
> (607) 435-3988 Mobile
>
> (208) 692-1898 Fax
> Skype: Radiowebst
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica?
>
>
>
> *From: *Af  on behalf of Brian Webster <
> i...@wirelessmapping.com>
> *Reply-To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Date: *Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
> *To: *"af@afmug.com" 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw
> really helped those independent operators when he created a national
> branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B
> side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group
> of WISP’s who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a
> conference call and discuss.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
>
> Brian Webster
>
> www.wirelessmapping.com
>
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
>
>
> Hey Guys
>
>
>
> Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this
> should be repeated in the WISP industry?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Brian Webster]

In this discussion should we have it, a history of the first cellular
networks their evolution and when the industry started to explode would need
to be laid out.  Starting from the early 80's on up through. This is
important because as Gino has suggested, the WISP industry is following a
very similar path and has always suffered from brand/product image,
recognition and understanding. Cellular phones back then suffered the same
problem. The word cellular was understood as a biology term by most. The
term "Car Phones" was better understood and only those who had a lot of
money had those and it was a party line system with no privacy. People had
them out of extreme necessity only. The concept of anyone other than the
phone company being able to deliver a phone service would not have ever
seemed possible to a consumer. At that time the breakup of Ma Bell was just
happening. A person could easily start a cellular network, no spectrum
auctions back then. Just apply to the FCC and pay the license fees.

 

Of an interesting side note, I had the opportunity to be working on a
consulting project for AT in Portland Oregon years ago, we had to review
leases, zoning approvals and other documents to determine if sites could be
expanded and what work was required for same. Sometimes leases mentioned
specific frequencies and antennas etc. so they might have to be renegotiated
or modified to add data and new frequencies and antennas. In this process I
had my hands on Craig McCaw's first 4 cell tower leases on his first built
cellular system. It was very cool to be holding that piece of history, his
personal signature and all. Such an innovator that hadn't hit his stride
yet.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brian Webster
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 5:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

I won't be there.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 

 

From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw
really helped those independent operators when he created a national
branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B
side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group
of WISP's who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a
conference call and discuss.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Hey Guys

 

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don't you think this should
be repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[chuck]

Well, the rest of the cool kids will be there.  

From: Brian Webster 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

I won’t be there.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

214 Eggleston Hill Rd.

Cooperstown, NY 13326

(607) 643-4055 Office

(607) 435-3988 Mobile

(208) 692-1898 Fax
Skype: Radiowebst

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 

 

From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster 

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding 
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Hey Guys

 

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Brian Webster]

I won't be there.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

214 Eggleston Hill Rd.

Cooperstown, NY 13326

(607) 643-4055 Office

(607) 435-3988 Mobile

(208) 692-1898 Fax
Skype: Radiowebst

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 

 

From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw
really helped those independent operators when he created a national
branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B
side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group
of WISP's who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a
conference call and discuss.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Hey Guys

 

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don't you think this should
be repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[George Skorup]

Buffer mode does mean on battery. Those tolerances are probably mostly 
accurate. The BCMU "360" is really rated for 240W continuous. And then 
take off about 15W for maintaining the battery. That's exactly why I 
load them up to no more than about 220W.


When we lose utility power, I do see the voltage drop somewhere abouts 
46-47VDC. Again, the internal DC-DC converter isn't all that efficient. 
Temperature is another factor (which is why they say 3 min "boost mode").


I've got 50Ah on a couple. One site is around 165W and will run for 
almost 2 hours. Maybe a little more, I forget. About 210W on another and 
it'll run a little over an hour. Usually enough time to run out a generator.


You shouldn't be seeing 44 volts under normal operation. However, if you 
have 300W on it, and it's on battery, that really wouldn't surprise me.


On 1/30/2018 2:35 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
That makes a lot more sense... I (and Paul too, I assume) must be 
reading the spec sheet wrong. I thought buffer mode was referring to 
when it was running on battery (I assumed that because of something 
else I read further down the spec sheet), but it must mean something 
else if it actually does put out 48.0v.


Output voltage / current
– Normal Mode
24 VDC mode:
Vin – (0.4 - 0.8V); 15 A max.
48 VDC mode:
Vin – (0.4 - 0.7V); 7.5 A max.
– Buffer Mode
24 VDC mode:
22.2 – 22.9 VDC; 10 A
(15 A in boost mode for 10min)
48 VDC mode:
44.6 – 45.3 VDC; 5 A
(7.5 A in boost mode for 3min)


On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:27 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:


The BCMU360 is definitely 12VDC on the battery side. It uses an
internal DC-DC converter. I'm using several. At 24, it puts out
24.0. And at 48, it puts out 48.0. Disconnect the power supply
from the BCMU and make sure it's putting out 48.0. The transfer
relay in the BCMU runs the load direct from the supply and
switches to battery (and DC-DC) when it senses low input voltage.
It puts out regulated 48 when on battery. But when the battery
gets low, the voltage will sag. I think it's only about 80%
efficient below 12.8VDC or so.

The pot on the BCMU is to adjust the battery float voltage. It
should be set to 13.6 or 13.8 from the factory. The trick there is
that if the battery is disconnected, it doesn't put out any
voltage. I usually connect a new battery and let it sit running
over night. Then put a meter on it the next day to see where it's
at and adjust a bit if needed. You'll also want to do this at room
temp with the remote probe disconnected.

The BCMU does have LVD. IIRC, the BATT-OK contact will open at
44-45VDC to give you an early warning. I believe the LVD cutoff is
about 42VDC (which means the batt will be at 10.5, or 1.75 volts
per cell which is a good limit for a stand-by UPS).

If you're getting 44 volts, as I said, check that the voltage
adjust pot on the supply is set correctly with no load. Or you
have too much load on it. I'm looking at a SiteMonitor right now
and it shows 47.6. The 5ch PDU reports Vin = 480. TSP180-148 +
BCMU360. Using about 100W at that site. I've got 200-ish foot runs
and the radios all run fine.

On 1/30/2018 12:49 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:

If I'm looking at the same thing, that one has a built in AC/DC
power supply... it's just adjusting the output voltage of the
power supply, and there's no DC-DC converter involved, so it
makes sense to just run on battery voltage (as far as I can tell
it needs 24v or 48v batteries).

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Paul McCall > wrote:

Yet, the BCM-148 says adjustable Output up to 54v.  Unless
you are on battery.  Silly

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:35 PM


*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and
upconverts it to 48V.  It charges the battery array (in
parallel) to about 13v per batter. So, why in the world they
would design a device that would upconvert that to anything
less than 48v (without load) is just silly.  We have UBNT
EP-S16s that will not turn on radios plugged in, if it gets
anything less than 45.5 to 46 volts.

But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it
seems to have the same design)  45v max output when on battery.

Pretty bizzare

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
Moffett
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

the American way.

  - Original Message - 
  From: ch...@wbmfg.com 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 2:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


  The start of another great oligopoly!

  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:57 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


  I would attend 

  Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

  - Reply message -
  From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
  Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 1:25 PM

  Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 

  From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster 

  Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


  Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding 
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss.

   

  Thank You,

  Brian Webster

  www.wirelessmapping.com

  www.Broadband-Mapping.com

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

   

  Hey Guys

   

  Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should 
be repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[chuck]

S

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:21 PM
To: af@afmug.com ; af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Or did you mean to say "Secret Society"?


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 1/30/2018 3:03:52 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

  The start of another great oligopoly!

  From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:57 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


  I would attend 

  Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

  - Reply message -
  From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
  Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 1:25 PM

  Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 

  From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster 

  Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


  Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding 
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss.

   

  Thank You,

  Brian Webster

  www.wirelessmapping.com

  www.Broadband-Mapping.com

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

   

  Hey Guys

   

  Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should 
be repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mathew Howard]

That makes a lot more sense... I (and Paul too, I assume) must be reading
the spec sheet wrong. I thought buffer mode was referring to when it was
running on battery (I assumed that because of something else I read further
down the spec sheet), but it must mean something else if it actually does
put out 48.0v.

Output voltage / current
– Normal Mode
24 VDC mode:
Vin – (0.4 - 0.8V); 15 A max.
48 VDC mode:
Vin – (0.4 - 0.7V); 7.5 A max.
– Buffer Mode
24 VDC mode:
22.2 – 22.9 VDC; 10 A
(15 A in boost mode for 10min)
48 VDC mode:
44.6 – 45.3 VDC; 5 A
(7.5 A in boost mode for 3min)


On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:27 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> The BCMU360 is definitely 12VDC on the battery side. It uses an internal
> DC-DC converter. I'm using several. At 24, it puts out 24.0. And at 48, it
> puts out 48.0. Disconnect the power supply from the BCMU and make sure it's
> putting out 48.0. The transfer relay in the BCMU runs the load direct from
> the supply and switches to battery (and DC-DC) when it senses low input
> voltage. It puts out regulated 48 when on battery. But when the battery
> gets low, the voltage will sag. I think it's only about 80% efficient below
> 12.8VDC or so.
>
> The pot on the BCMU is to adjust the battery float voltage. It should be
> set to 13.6 or 13.8 from the factory. The trick there is that if the
> battery is disconnected, it doesn't put out any voltage. I usually connect
> a new battery and let it sit running over night. Then put a meter on it the
> next day to see where it's at and adjust a bit if needed. You'll also want
> to do this at room temp with the remote probe disconnected.
>
> The BCMU does have LVD. IIRC, the BATT-OK contact will open at 44-45VDC to
> give you an early warning. I believe the LVD cutoff is about 42VDC (which
> means the batt will be at 10.5, or 1.75 volts per cell which is a good
> limit for a stand-by UPS).
>
> If you're getting 44 volts, as I said, check that the voltage adjust pot
> on the supply is set correctly with no load. Or you have too much load on
> it. I'm looking at a SiteMonitor right now and it shows 47.6. The 5ch PDU
> reports Vin = 480. TSP180-148 + BCMU360. Using about 100W at that site.
> I've got 200-ish foot runs and the radios all run fine.
>
> On 1/30/2018 12:49 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
>
> If I'm looking at the same thing, that one has a built in AC/DC power
> supply... it's just adjusting the output voltage of the power supply, and
> there's no DC-DC converter involved, so it makes sense to just run on
> battery voltage (as far as I can tell it needs 24v or 48v batteries).
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>
>> Yet, the BCM-148 says adjustable Output up to 54v.  Unless you are on
>> battery.  Silly
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:35 PM
>>
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to
>> 48V.  It charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per batter.
>> So, why in the world they would design a device that would upconvert that
>> to anything less than 48v (without load) is just silly.  We have UBNT
>> EP-S16s that will not turn on radios plugged in, if it gets anything less
>> than 45.5 to 46 volts.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to have
>> the same design)  45v max output when on battery.
>>
>>
>>
>> Pretty bizzare
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
>> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>>
>>
>>
>> When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being
>> on battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these
>> types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it
>> differently.
>>
>>
>>
>> You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC
>> converter inline.
>>
>>
>>
>> I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range
>> from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that
>> device is that needs >46v.
>>
>>
>>
>> .and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it
>> actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we
>> now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge
>> batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the sticker
>> indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following
>> the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the temperature sensor
>> (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't break anything, but
>> they units won't turn on that way.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's
>> 48V options, and Traco was 

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[George Skorup]

The BCMU360 is definitely 12VDC on the battery side. It uses an internal 
DC-DC converter. I'm using several. At 24, it puts out 24.0. And at 48, 
it puts out 48.0. Disconnect the power supply from the BCMU and make 
sure it's putting out 48.0. The transfer relay in the BCMU runs the load 
direct from the supply and switches to battery (and DC-DC) when it 
senses low input voltage. It puts out regulated 48 when on battery. But 
when the battery gets low, the voltage will sag. I think it's only about 
80% efficient below 12.8VDC or so.


The pot on the BCMU is to adjust the battery float voltage. It should be 
set to 13.6 or 13.8 from the factory. The trick there is that if the 
battery is disconnected, it doesn't put out any voltage. I usually 
connect a new battery and let it sit running over night. Then put a 
meter on it the next day to see where it's at and adjust a bit if 
needed. You'll also want to do this at room temp with the remote probe 
disconnected.


The BCMU does have LVD. IIRC, the BATT-OK contact will open at 44-45VDC 
to give you an early warning. I believe the LVD cutoff is about 42VDC 
(which means the batt will be at 10.5, or 1.75 volts per cell which is a 
good limit for a stand-by UPS).


If you're getting 44 volts, as I said, check that the voltage adjust pot 
on the supply is set correctly with no load. Or you have too much load 
on it. I'm looking at a SiteMonitor right now and it shows 47.6. The 5ch 
PDU reports Vin = 480. TSP180-148 + BCMU360. Using about 100W at that 
site. I've got 200-ish foot runs and the radios all run fine.


On 1/30/2018 12:49 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
If I'm looking at the same thing, that one has a built in AC/DC power 
supply... it's just adjusting the output voltage of the power supply, 
and there's no DC-DC converter involved, so it makes sense to just run 
on battery voltage (as far as I can tell it needs 24v or 48v batteries).


On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Paul McCall > wrote:


Yet, the BCM-148 says adjustable Output up to 54v.  Unless you are
on battery.  Silly

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:35 PM


*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts
it to 48V.  It charges the battery array (in parallel) to about
13v per batter.  So, why in the world they would design a device
that would upconvert that to anything less than 48v (without load)
is just silly.  We have UBNT EP-S16s that will not turn on radios
plugged in, if it gets anything less than 45.5 to 46 volts.

But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems
to have the same design)  45v max output when on battery.

Pretty bizzare

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com 
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load
being on battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal
behavior for these types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt
for something that does it differently.

You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC
converter inline.

I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the
whole range from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so
I'm wondering what that device is that needs >46v.

.and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it
actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago,
and we now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no
longer charge batteries.  I also received a whole box of them
where the sticker indicating which pin does what on the BCM was
100% backwards. By following the sticker rather than the manual I
ended up with the temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the
reset switch.  Didn't break anything, but they units won't turn on
that way.

At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than
Meanwell's 48V options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think
I'd go there again.

-- Original Message --

From: "Paul McCall" >

To: "af@afmug.com " >

Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very
usable in the real world?

Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple
minutes, then 44v and change), when running on the battery.
Not very usable with some gear that requires about 46v to work
properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long run 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Adam Moffett]

Or did you mean to say "Secret Society"?


-- Original Message --
From: ch...@wbmfg.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 1/30/2018 3:03:52 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


The start of another great oligopoly!

From:CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:57 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


I would attend

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 1:25 PM

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica?

From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster 


Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig 
McCaw really helped those independent operators when he created a 
national branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete 
with the B side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an 
interested group of WISP’s who wanted to explore the concept I would be 
willing to have a conference call and discuss.




Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP



Hey Guys



Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this 
should be repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[chuck]

The start of another great oligopoly!

From: CBB - Jay Fuller 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:57 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


I would attend 

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 1:25 PM

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 

From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster 

Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding 
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Hey Guys

 

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

I would attend 

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2018 1:25 PM

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica? 







From: Af  on behalf of Brian Webster 


Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 

Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM

To: "af@afmug.com" 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP












Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss.


Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com





From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]
On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM

To: af@afmug.com

Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP






Hey Guys







Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Gino A. Villarini]

Should we discuss it as session at wispamerica?

From: Af > on behalf of Brian 
Webster >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:50 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw 
really helped those independent operators when he created a national branding 
for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B side that were 
all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group of WISP’s who 
wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a conference call and 
discuss.

Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Hey Guys

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[chuck]

Our oldest is about 6 years old with 50K miles on it.  Running fine.  

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

Sorry, I was thinking Transit, not Transit Connect - that's a car.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Lewis Bergman  wrote:

  I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where we 
needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
  I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier 
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with transmissions 
at about 60k.

  There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E 
class. We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I think 
we get around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the connect got. 
It really didn't matter how great the milage was. The clearance was so low and 
the trees so small it just want holding up and couldn't get to the sure we 
needed to get to. If you drive only in the city and highway it would probably 
be fine. Although a small the will cause a flat. 

  On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:

Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check 
overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the e-series 
isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to trade my E250 
for one.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway  
wrote:

  What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and 
how well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance 
although gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects can’t 
hold up to dirt road life like the E-150.



  Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

  4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

  602-426-0542

  r...@triadwireless.net

  www.triadwireless.net



  “Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Jason McKemie]

Sorry, I was thinking Transit, not Transit Connect - that's a car.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:48 AM, Lewis Bergman 
wrote:

> I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where
> we needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
> I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in
> thier fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with
> transmissions at about 60k.
>
> There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E
> class. We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I
> think we get around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the
> connect got. It really didn't matter how great the milage was. The
> clearance was so low and the trees so small it just want holding up and
> couldn't get to the sure we needed to get to. If you drive only in the city
> and highway it would probably be fine. Although a small the will cause a
> flat.
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check
>> overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the
>> e-series isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to
>> trade my E250 for one.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and
>>> how well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance
>>> although gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects
>>> can’t hold up to dirt road life like the E-150.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>>>
>>> *4226 S. 37
>>> th Street •
>>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>>
>>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>>
>>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>>
>>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mathew Howard]

If I'm looking at the same thing, that one has a built in AC/DC power
supply... it's just adjusting the output voltage of the power supply, and
there's no DC-DC converter involved, so it makes sense to just run on
battery voltage (as far as I can tell it needs 24v or 48v batteries).

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> Yet, the BCM-148 says adjustable Output up to 54v.  Unless you are on
> battery.  Silly
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul McCall
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:35 PM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
>
>
> Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to
> 48V.  It charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per batter.
> So, why in the world they would design a device that would upconvert that
> to anything less than 48v (without load) is just silly.  We have UBNT
> EP-S16s that will not turn on radios plugged in, if it gets anything less
> than 45.5 to 46 volts.
>
>
>
> But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to have
> the same design)  45v max output when on battery.
>
>
>
> Pretty bizzare
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com ] *On
> Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
>
>
> When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being on
> battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these
> types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it
> differently.
>
>
>
> You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC
> converter inline.
>
>
>
> I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range
> from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that
> device is that needs >46v.
>
>
>
> .and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it
> actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we
> now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge
> batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the sticker
> indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following
> the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the temperature sensor
> (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't break anything, but
> they units won't turn on that way.
>
>
>
> At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 48V
> options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Paul McCall" 
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
> Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
>
> Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
>
>
> Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the
> real world?
>
>
>
> Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v
> and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear
> that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long
> run and no-go.
>
>
>
> I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they
> appear to have the same spec.
>
>
>
> I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell
> these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v
> sustained seems dumb.
>
>
>
> Or is me 
>
>
>
> Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, okay, I see the BCM48A looks like it's just straight through battery
voltage, and it just lists 48-56v in the spec sheet.

That's normal, and what I would expect. If you want anything higher than
battery voltage, you're obviously going to need a DC-DC converter... which
I thought would be a big advantage of the BCMU360, but apparently not if
they only go up to 44v.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> If you guys are right about the BCMU, I can tell you for a fact that the
> BCM48A puts battery voltage on the load.  I have a whole stack of these
> things.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Paul McCall" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 1/30/2018 1:35:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
> Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to
> 48V.  It charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per batter.
> So, why in the world they would design a device that would upconvert that
> to anything less than 48v (without load) is just silly.  We have UBNT
> EP-S16s that will not turn on radios plugged in, if it gets anything less
> than 45.5 to 46 volts.
>
>
>
> But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to have
> the same design)  45v max output when on battery.
>
>
>
> Pretty bizzare
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
>
>
> When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being on
> battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these
> types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it
> differently.
>
>
>
> You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC
> converter inline.
>
>
>
> I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range
> from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that
> device is that needs >46v.
>
>
>
> .and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it
> actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we
> now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge
> batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the sticker
> indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following
> the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the temperature sensor
> (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't break anything, but
> they units won't turn on that way.
>
>
>
> At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 48V
> options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Paul McCall" 
>
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
> Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
>
> Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
>
>
> Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the
> real world?
>
>
>
> Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v
> and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear
> that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long
> run and no-go.
>
>
>
> I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they
> appear to have the same spec.
>
>
>
> I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell
> these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v
> sustained seems dumb.
>
>
>
> Or is me 
>
>
>
> Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mike Hammett]

The BCMU does not put battery voltage to the load. Battery is 12v, load is 24v 
or 48v (nominal, of course). 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:36:47 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM 


If you guys are right about the BCMU, I can tell you for a fact that the BCM48A 
puts battery voltage on the load. I have a whole stack of these things. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > 
To: "af@afmug.com" < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: 1/30/2018 1:35:10 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM 






Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to 48V. It 
charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per batter. So, why in the 
world they would design a device that would upconvert that to anything less 
than 48v (without load) is just silly. We have UBNT EP-S16s that will not turn 
on radios plugged in, if it gets anything less than 45.5 to 46 volts. 

But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to have the 
same design) 45v max output when on battery. 

Pretty bizzare 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM 


When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage. The load being on 
battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these types of 
systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it differently. 



You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC converter 
inline. 



I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range from 
"batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that device 
is that needs >46v. 



.and I'm not a Traco lover. I'm kind of disappointed with it actually. We 
must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we now have 3 faulty 
BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge batteries. I also 
received a whole box of them where the sticker indicating which pin does what 
on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following the sticker rather than the manual 
I ended up with the temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the reset 
switch. Didn't break anything, but they units won't turn on that way. 



At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 48V 
options, and Traco was suggested. I don't think I'd go there again. 





-- Original Message -- 

From: "Paul McCall" < pa...@pdmnet.net > 

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

Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM 

Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM 





Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the real 
world? 

Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v and 
change), when running on the battery. Not very usable with some gear that 
requires about 46v to work properly. Add in voltage drop on a long run and 
no-go. 

I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they appear to 
have the same spec. 

I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell these 
to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v sustained 
seems dumb. 

Or is me  

Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers 

Paul McCall, President 
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc. 
658 Old Dixie Highway 
Vero Beach, FL 32962 
772-564-6800 
pa...@pdmnet.net 
www.pdmnet.com 
www.floridabroadband.com 

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mathew Howard]

I think we must be looking at different models. The spec sheet for the
BCMU360 says it has a jumper to select between 48v and 24v, and it connects
to a 12v battery.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> You're mistaken, or the spec sheet is misleading.
> They sell a 24V or 48V model.  They do sell 12V batteries as an accessory,
> but you use two of them for the 24V or four for the 48V.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 1/30/2018 1:30:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
> No, it can't get battery voltage... the BCMU360 uses a 12v battery - it
> has to be upconverting to 44v, and if that's the case, why 44v instead of
> 48v?
>
> I was just looking at an ePMP 2000 AP I have sitting here, and it lists
> the minimum voltage as 42.5v, so that doesn't leave much room for voltage
> drop.
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being
>> on battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these
>> types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it
>> differently.
>>
>> You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC
>> converter inline.
>>
>> I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range
>> from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that
>> device is that needs >46v.
>>
>> .and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it
>> actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we
>> now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge
>> batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the sticker
>> indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following
>> the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the temperature sensor
>> (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't break anything, but
>> they units won't turn on that way.
>>
>> At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's
>> 48V options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Paul McCall" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
>> Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>>
>> Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the
>> real world?
>>
>>
>>
>> Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v
>> and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear
>> that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long
>> run and no-go.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they
>> appear to have the same spec.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell
>> these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v
>> sustained seems dumb.
>>
>>
>>
>> Or is me 
>>
>>
>>
>> Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul McCall, President
>>
>> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>>
>> 658 Old Dixie Highway
>> 
>>
>> Vero Beach, FL 32962
>> 
>>
>> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>>
>> pa...@pdmnet.net
>>
>> www.pdmnet.com
>>
>> www.floridabroadband.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Paul McCall]

Yet, the BCM-148 says adjustable Output up to 54v.  Unless you are on battery.  
Silly

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:35 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to 48V.  It 
charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per batter.  So, why in 
the world they would design a device that would upconvert that to anything less 
than 48v (without load) is just silly.  We have UBNT EP-S16s that will not turn 
on radios plugged in, if it gets anything less than 45.5 to 46 volts.

But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to have the 
same design)  45v max output when on battery.

Pretty bizzare

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being on 
battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these types of 
systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it differently.

You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC converter 
inline.

I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range from 
"batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that device 
is that needs >46v.

.and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it actually.  We 
must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we now have 3 faulty 
BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge batteries.  I also 
received a whole box of them where the sticker indicating which pin does what 
on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following the sticker rather than the manual 
I ended up with the temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the reset 
switch.  Didn't break anything, but they units won't turn on that way.

At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 48V 
options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.


-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" >
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the real 
world?

Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v and 
change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear that 
requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long run and 
no-go.

I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they appear to 
have the same spec.

I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell these 
to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v sustained 
seems dumb.

Or is me 

Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Adam Moffett]

If you guys are right about the BCMU, I can tell you for a fact that the 
BCM48A puts battery voltage on the load.  I have a whole stack of these 
things.



-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 1/30/2018 1:35:10 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to 
48V.  It charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per 
batter.  So, why in the world they would design a device that would 
upconvert that to anything less than 48v (without load) is just silly.  
We have UBNT EP-S16s that will not turn on radios plugged in, if it 
gets anything less than 45.5 to 46 volts.




But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to 
have the same design)  45v max output when on battery.




Pretty bizzare



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM



When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being 
on battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for 
these types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that 
does it differently.




You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC 
converter inline.




I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole 
range from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering 
what that device is that needs >46v.




.and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it 
actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and 
we now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer 
charge batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the 
sticker indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. 
By following the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the 
temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't 
break anything, but they units won't turn on that way.




At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 
48V options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there 
again.






-- Original Message --

From: "Paul McCall" 

To: "af@afmug.com" 

Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM

Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM



Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in 
the real world?




Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 
44v and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with 
some gear that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage 
drop on a long run and no-go.




I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they 
appear to have the same spec.




I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell 
these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 
44v sustained seems dumb.




Or is me 



Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers



Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800

pa...@pdmnet.net

www.pdmnet.com

www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Paul McCall]

Actually, the BCMU is the model that takes 12v in and upconverts it to 48V.  It 
charges the battery array (in parallel) to about 13v per batter.  So, why in 
the world they would design a device that would upconvert that to anything less 
than 48v (without load) is just silly.  We have UBNT EP-S16s that will not turn 
on radios plugged in, if it gets anything less than 45.5 to 46 volts.

But, even on the BCM-148, (where you run 48v in series, it seems to have the 
same design)  45v max output when on battery.

Pretty bizzare

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being on 
battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these types of 
systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it differently.

You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC converter 
inline.

I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range from 
"batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that device 
is that needs >46v.

.and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it actually.  We 
must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we now have 3 faulty 
BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge batteries.  I also 
received a whole box of them where the sticker indicating which pin does what 
on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following the sticker rather than the manual 
I ended up with the temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the reset 
switch.  Didn't break anything, but they units won't turn on that way.

At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 48V 
options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.


-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" >
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the real 
world?

Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v and 
change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear that 
requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long run and 
no-go.

I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they appear to 
have the same spec.

I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell these 
to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v sustained 
seems dumb.

Or is me 

Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Adam Moffett]

You're mistaken, or the spec sheet is misleading.
They sell a 24V or 48V model.  They do sell 12V batteries as an 
accessory, but you use two of them for the 24V or four for the 48V.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 1/30/2018 1:30:53 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

No, it can't get battery voltage... the BCMU360 uses a 12v battery - it 
has to be upconverting to 44v, and if that's the case, why 44v instead 
of 48v?


I was just looking at an ePMP 2000 AP I have sitting here, and it lists 
the minimum voltage as 42.5v, so that doesn't leave much room for 
voltage drop.


On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:
When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load 
being on battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior 
for these types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something 
that does it differently.


You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC 
converter inline.


I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole 
range from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm 
wondering what that device is that needs >46v.


.and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it 
actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and 
we now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer 
charge batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the 
sticker indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. 
By following the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the 
temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't 
break anything, but they units won't turn on that way.


At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 
48V options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there 
again.



-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in 
the real world?




Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 
44v and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with 
some gear that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage 
drop on a long run and no-go.




I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they 
appear to have the same spec.




I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they 
sell these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, 
outputting 44v sustained seems dumb.




Or is me 



Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers



Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway 



Vero Beach, FL 32962 



772-564-6800 

pa...@pdmnet.net

www.pdmnet.com

www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mathew Howard]

No, it can't get battery voltage... the BCMU360 uses a 12v battery - it has
to be upconverting to 44v, and if that's the case, why 44v instead of 48v?

I was just looking at an ePMP 2000 AP I have sitting here, and it lists the
minimum voltage as 42.5v, so that doesn't leave much room for voltage drop.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

> When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being on
> battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for these
> types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that does it
> differently.
>
> You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC
> converter inline.
>
> I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole range
> from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering what that
> device is that needs >46v.
>
> .and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it
> actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and we
> now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer charge
> batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the sticker
> indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. By following
> the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the temperature sensor
> (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't break anything, but
> they units won't turn on that way.
>
> At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 48V
> options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Paul McCall" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM
>
> Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the
> real world?
>
>
>
> Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v
> and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear
> that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long
> run and no-go.
>
>
>
> I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they
> appear to have the same spec.
>
>
>
> I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell
> these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v
> sustained seems dumb.
>
>
>
> Or is me 
>
>
>
> Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Adam Moffett]

When running on battery, the load gets battery voltage.  The load being 
on battery (or charger) voltage seems to be the normal behavior for 
these types of systems, so you'd have to really hunt for something that 
does it differently.


You can hunt for something with a regulated output, or add a DC-DC 
converter inline.


I haven't yet encountered a 48V device that didn't accept the whole 
range from "batteries nearly dead" to "bulk charging", so I'm wondering 
what that device is that needs >46v.


.and I'm not a Traco lover.  I'm kind of disappointed with it 
actually.  We must have bought 40 of those kits about 3 years ago, and 
we now have 3 faulty BCM modulesthey work except they no longer 
charge batteries.  I also received a whole box of them where the sticker 
indicating which pin does what on the BCM was 100% backwards. By 
following the sticker rather than the manual I ended up with the 
temperature sensor (thermistor) connected to the reset switch.  Didn't 
break anything, but they units won't turn on that way.


At the time I needed something 48V at a higher wattage than Meanwell's 
48V options, and Traco was suggested.  I don't think I'd go there again.



-- Original Message --
From: "Paul McCall" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 1/30/2018 12:59:12 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in 
the real world?




Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 
44v and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with 
some gear that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage 
drop on a long run and no-go.




I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they 
appear to have the same spec.




I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell 
these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 
44v sustained seems dumb.




Or is me 



Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers



Paul McCall, President

PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800

pa...@pdmnet.net

www.pdmnet.com

www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Mathew Howard]

I haven't ever used one, but that certainly does seem like a problem to me.
It'll probably run most stuff fine at that voltage, but considering PoE
voltage drop, that's cutting it way to close for my liking. I've considered
using these, but I never looked at the specs that close before.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:

> Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the
> real world?
>
>
>
> Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v
> and change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear
> that requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long
> run and no-go.
>
>
>
> I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they
> appear to have the same spec.
>
>
>
> I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell
> these to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v
> sustained seems dumb.
>
>
>
> Or is me 
>
>
>
> Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers
>
>
>
> Paul McCall, President
>
> PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
>
> 658 Old Dixie Highway
> 
>
> Vero Beach, FL 32962
> 
>
> 772-564-6800 <(772)%20564-6800>
>
> pa...@pdmnet.net
>
> www.pdmnet.com
>
> www.floridabroadband.com
>
>
>
>
>

[AFMUG] Traco BCM

[Paul McCall]

Am I missing something or are the Traco BCM series not very usable in the real 
world?

Meaning, the BCMU360 can only put out 45v (for a couple minutes, then 44v and 
change), when running on the battery.  Not very usable with some gear that 
requires about 46v to work properly.  Add in voltage drop on a long run and 
no-go.

I thought maybe the straight BCM 48v series would be better, but they appear to 
have the same spec.

I have to think I am missing something or who the heck would they sell these 
to? The industry standard is 48v (54v with float) so, outputting 44v sustained 
seems dumb.

Or is me 

Enlighten me please, you Traco lovers

Paul McCall, President
PDMNet, Inc. / Florida Broadband, Inc.
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800
pa...@pdmnet.net
www.pdmnet.com
www.floridabroadband.com

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Brian Webster]

Absolutely. I have had a method like this in my head for year. Craig McCaw
really helped those independent operators when he created a national
branding for the A side cellular operators that had to compete with the B
side that were all the established ILECs. If there were an interested group
of WISP's who wanted to explore the concept I would be willing to have a
conference call and discuss.

 

Thank You,

Brian Webster

  www.wirelessmapping.com

www.Broadband-Mapping.com

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

 

Hey Guys

 

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don't you think this should
be repeated in the WISP industry? 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Mathew Howard]

If I remember correctly, Cellular One eventually turned into something more
like JAB/Rise, but in the beginning it was more like a coop of independent
companies working together for advertising, etc, and to work together
instead of just fighting amongst themselves.

I always thought that would be a good idea for WISPs.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:10 AM, Gino A. Villarini 
wrote:

> Jab/ rise buys and aggregates companies, Cellular One was more like a
> coop/franchise system
>
> From: Af  on behalf of Lewis Bergman <
> lewis.berg...@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP
>
> I thought that is what JAB/Rise was doing.
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:11 AM Timothy Steele 
> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean? Cellular one is known as the worst company alive
>> everywhere I've been
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:57 AM Gino A. Villarini 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Guys
>>>
>>> Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this
>>> should be repeated in the WISP industry?
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

[Adam Moffett]

Generally every Cisco I encountered at a customer site was setup by IT 
consultants, and every single one was configured according to the 
examples in Cisco whitepapers.  Right down to giving ACL's the exact 
same names and using outdated encryption protocols.  Who uses DES with 
IPSEC? Someone copying a Cisco whitepaper, that's who!


I'd bet a box of donuts that switch configuration is something trivial 
and you shouldn't fret about having to re-do it.




-- Original Message --
From: "Bill Prince" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 1/30/2018 11:29:15 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

I didn't mean to oversimplify the task. I'd look at the Cisco 
configuration. If you're using fewer than a half-dozen ports, then the 
main issues is whether they are configured as a flat network, or 
whether there are any special VLAN rules, or aggregation. Nine times 
out of ten, you might find that a vanilla smart switch will accomplish 
what you need.



bp


On 1/30/2018 8:17 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
While what Bill said is true enough, on a practical level you can’t 
just drop the configuration syntax from one brand switch into another 
brand (or even model) of switch.Command line syntax is different, 
port naming convention is different, etc.


Some manufacturers make “Cisco converter” software that does the 
translation for you - but all of them I have seen are imperfect at 
best.   They will get you close but you still need to know what to do 
when the translator pukes.


https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB13220 is an 
example.


Mark

On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Bill Prince  
wrote:


Switches are switches and switches are relatively simple creatures. 
As long as they are not configured to do something that is 
exclusively "Cisco", then you could put in almost any switch.



bp


On 1/29/2018 6:55 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
Can I copy Cisco switch configuration and import to a Brocade or 
other switch?


Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

[Bill Prince]

I didn't mean to oversimplify the task. I'd look at the Cisco 
configuration. If you're using fewer than a half-dozen ports, then the 
main issues is whether they are configured as a flat network, or whether 
there are any special VLAN rules, or aggregation. Nine times out of ten, 
you might find that a vanilla smart switch will accomplish what you need.



bp


On 1/30/2018 8:17 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:

While what Bill said is true enough, on a practical level you can’t just drop 
the configuration syntax from one brand switch into another brand (or even 
model) of switch.Command line syntax is different, port naming convention 
is different, etc.

Some manufacturers make “Cisco converter” software that does the translation 
for you - but all of them I have seen are imperfect at best.   They will get 
you close but you still need to know what to do when the translator pukes.

https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB13220 is an example.

Mark


On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:

Switches are switches and switches are relatively simple creatures. As long as they are 
not configured to do something that is exclusively "Cisco", then you could put 
in almost any switch.


bp


On 1/29/2018 6:55 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:

Can I copy Cisco switch configuration and import to a Brocade or other switch?

Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Adam Moffett]

Oh ok.

Are you thinking build one brand?  Maybe a local outfit pays a franchise 
fee.  The franchise holder (under NDA) gets access to the engineering 
and design data to build a local network to the specifications of the 
national brand.  Something along those lines?


-- Original Message --
From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 1/30/2018 11:10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

Jab/ rise buys and aggregates companies, Cellular One was more like a 
coop/franchise system


From: Af  on behalf of Lewis Bergman 


Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

I thought that is what JAB/Rise was doing.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:11 AM Timothy Steele 
 wrote:
What do you mean? Cellular one is known as the worst company alive 
everywhere I've been



On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:57 AM Gino A. Villarini  
wrote:

Hey Guys

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this 
should be repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Lewis Bergman]

i have the high one and my guy that is 6'3", regrettably not me, can stand
upright without feeling like he is going to hit his head. My only complaint
was it was kind of dark with that big of a space so we put LED strips in
along the sides and top rails and now you could inspect diamonds back
there. The lights were close to this link

but
not exactly.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:43 AM Ben Royer  wrote:

> We just got a couple more Express 2500 LWB, making it 9 total.  However, I
> really want to migrate to Ram Promaster.  If anyone ever has one for sale
> with the high roof though, let me know.  Seems like being able to step up
> in and prep gear out of the weather would be a really nice feature.
>
> Thank you,
> Ben Royer, Operations Manager
> Royell Communications, Inc.
> 217-965-3699 <(217)%20965-3699> www.royell.net
>
> *From:* Rory Conaway 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:32 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150
>
> How many miles do you have on them?
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Chuck McCown
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:59 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150
>
>
>
> I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.
>
>
>
> *From:* Lewis Bergman
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM
>
> *To:* af@afmug.com
>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150
>
>
>
> I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where
> we needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
>
> I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in
> thier fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with
> transmissions at about 60k.
>
>
>
> There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E
> class. We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I
> think we get around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the
> connect got. It really didn't matter how great the milage was. The
> clearance was so low and the trees so small it just want holding up and
> couldn't get to the sure we needed to get to. If you drive only in the city
> and highway it would probably be fine. Although a small the will cause a
> flat.
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
> Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check
> overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the
> e-series isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to
> trade my E250 for one.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
> What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and
> how well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance
> although gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects
> can’t hold up to dirt road life like the E-150.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37
> th
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>
> *www.triadwireless.net
> *
>
>
>
> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

[Mark Radabaugh]

While what Bill said is true enough, on a practical level you can’t just drop 
the configuration syntax from one brand switch into another brand (or even 
model) of switch.Command line syntax is different, port naming convention 
is different, etc.

Some manufacturers make “Cisco converter” software that does the translation 
for you - but all of them I have seen are imperfect at best.   They will get 
you close but you still need to know what to do when the translator pukes.

https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content=KB13220 is an example.

Mark

> On Jan 30, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Bill Prince  wrote:
> 
> Switches are switches and switches are relatively simple creatures. As long 
> as they are not configured to do something that is exclusively "Cisco", then 
> you could put in almost any switch.
> 
> 
> bp
> 
> 
> On 1/29/2018 6:55 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>> Can I copy Cisco switch configuration and import to a Brocade or other 
>> switch?
>> 
>> Jaime Solorza
> 

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Gino A. Villarini]

Jab/ rise buys and aggregates companies, Cellular One was more like a 
coop/franchise system

From: Af > on behalf of Lewis 
Bergman >
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:46 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" >
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

I thought that is what JAB/Rise was doing.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:11 AM Timothy Steele 
> wrote:

What do you mean? Cellular one is known as the worst company alive everywhere 
I've been

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:57 AM Gino A. Villarini 
> wrote:
Hey Guys

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Adam Moffett]

You might have to educate me on the relevant history.  Do you mean one 
network sold by many local vendors?


-- Original Message --
From: "Gino A. Villarini" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 1/30/2018 9:57:35 AM
Subject: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP


Hey Guys

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this 
should be repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Lewis Bergman]

I thought that is what JAB/Rise was doing.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:11 AM Timothy Steele 
wrote:

> What do you mean? Cellular one is known as the worst company alive
> everywhere I've been
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:57 AM Gino A. Villarini  wrote:
>
>> Hey Guys
>>
>> Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this
>> should be repeated in the WISP industry?
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

[Lewis Bergman]

Maintenance. I have three locations. Only one of them has anyone that can
discern Motor Oil from Olive Oil. I did it primarily because Enterprise
Fleet Services has about 75 ASE mechanics in a call center that shops have
to gain approval from to get paid to do work. I was getting drilled every
time one of my vehicles went for an oil change or got any kind of service.
The ASE guys also have database access of national, local, and historical
parts cost and they negotiate with the service provider on pricing. The
first year it saved me more than what the leasing fees cost. Basically
anything that is not an insurable or abuse event is covered. You do have to
opt for that and pay a reasonable fee for it.

Tax. They try to sell the tax advantage but with Sec 159 there really isn't
one in my case.

Price. Somebody like Enterprise Fleet buys over a million vehicles a year.
They get unbelievable pricing and are very transparent with it. I could
lease my vehicles, get maintenance for 3 or 5 years included (including one
set of tires, brakes, and all recommended oil changes and services) and it
only cost me about $2,000 more than buying the vehicle outright. The total
price of all that has routinely been a couple thousand less than any price
I could get from a dealer.

Cash. The last reason would be cash conservation.

I have one more reason but am hesitant to discuss it on a public forum so
you can email me privately and we can discuss it.

I did approach a couple of local dealers and try to negotiate an all
inclusive maintenance plan for similar money, which I thought they would
jump at, but nobody wanted to do it. I know I would have if I was them.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:14 AM Adam Moffett  wrote:

> Lewis mentioned that he leases company vehicles.  What's the scenario
> where you'd rather lease than own a vehicle?
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Ben Royer]

We just got a couple more Express 2500 LWB, making it 9 total.  However, I 
really want to migrate to Ram Promaster.  If anyone ever has one for sale with 
the high roof though, let me know.  Seems like being able to step up in and 
prep gear out of the weather would be a really nice feature.

Thank you,
Ben Royer, Operations Manager
Royell Communications, Inc.
217-965-3699 www.royell.net

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

How many miles do you have on them?

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

 

I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.  

 

From: Lewis Bergman 

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

 

I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where we 
needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.

I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier 
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with transmissions 
at about 60k.

 

There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E class. 
We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I think we get 
around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the connect got. It 
really didn't matter how great the milage was. The clearance was so low and the 
trees so small it just want holding up and couldn't get to the sure we needed 
to get to. If you drive only in the city and highway it would probably be fine. 
Although a small the will cause a flat. 

 

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie  
wrote:

  Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check 
overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the e-series 
isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to trade my E250 
for one.

   

  On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

  What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and how 
well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance although 
gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects can’t hold up 
to dirt road life like the E-150.

   

  Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

  4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

  602-426-0542

  r...@triadwireless.net

  www.triadwireless.net

   

  “Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

   

   

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Chuck McCown]

I’ll check.

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

How many miles do you have on them?

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

 

I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.  

 

From: Lewis Bergman 

Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

 

I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where we 
needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.

I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier 
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with transmissions 
at about 60k.

 

There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E class. 
We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I think we get 
around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the connect got. It 
really didn't matter how great the milage was. The clearance was so low and the 
trees so small it just want holding up and couldn't get to the sure we needed 
to get to. If you drive only in the city and highway it would probably be fine. 
Although a small the will cause a flat. 

 

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie  
wrote:

  Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check 
overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the e-series 
isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to trade my E250 
for one.

   

  On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

  What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and how 
well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance although 
gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects can’t hold up 
to dirt road life like the E-150.

   

  Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

  4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

  602-426-0542

  r...@triadwireless.net

  www.triadwireless.net

   

  “Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

   

   

Re: [AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

[Chuck McCown]

I like leases.  My wife likes purchases.
Purchases are OK for used equipment.
I prefer to lease vehicles.  
On large new equipment, lease to own is my preferred method of purchase.  

From: Rory Conaway 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:32 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

Saves cash flow and is an expense instead of a capital purchase.

 

Rory

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

 

Lewis mentioned that he leases company vehicles.  What's the scenario where 
you'd rather lease than own a vehicle?

 

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Chuck McCown]

Eagle Mountain.  Yeah, flat country mostly.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:13 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

In SLC?

-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 1/30/2018 9:58:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

  I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.  

  From: Lewis Bergman 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

  I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where we 
needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
  I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier 
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with transmissions 
at about 60k.

  There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E 
class. We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I think 
we get around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the connect got. 
It really didn't matter how great the milage was. The clearance was so low and 
the trees so small it just want holding up and couldn't get to the sure we 
needed to get to. If you drive only in the city and highway it would probably 
be fine. Although a small the will cause a flat. 

  On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:

Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check 
overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the e-series 
isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to trade my E250 
for one.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway  
wrote:

  What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and 
how well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance 
although gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects can’t 
hold up to dirt road life like the E-150.



  Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

  4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

  602-426-0542

  r...@triadwireless.net

  www.triadwireless.net



  “Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

[Bill Prince]

Switches are switches and switches are relatively simple creatures. As 
long as they are not configured to do something that is exclusively 
"Cisco", then you could put in almost any switch.



bp


On 1/29/2018 6:55 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
Can I copy Cisco switch configuration and import to a Brocade or other 
switch?


Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Rory Conaway]

How many miles do you have on them?

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:59 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.

From: Lewis Bergman
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where we 
needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier 
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with transmissions 
at about 60k.

There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E class. 
We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I think we get 
around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the connect got. It 
really didn't matter how great the milage was. The clearance was so low and the 
trees so small it just want holding up and couldn't get to the sure we needed 
to get to. If you drive only in the city and highway it would probably be fine. 
Although a small the will cause a flat.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie 
> 
wrote:
Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check overseas 
for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the e-series isn't 
coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to trade my E250 for 
one.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and how 
well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance although 
gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects can’t hold up 
to dirt road life like the E-150.

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

“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

Re: [AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

[Rory Conaway]

Saves cash flow and is an expense instead of a capital purchase.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:14 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

Lewis mentioned that he leases company vehicles.  What's the scenario where 
you'd rather lease than own a vehicle?

Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

neat did not know about the --aslookup options.. 
now have to find the version of mtr that supports this.

:)

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
http://www.snappytelecom.net

Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

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

- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Reynolds" 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:00:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?

> mtr / mtr-tiny can do this, but you need to be root
> 
> For example:
> root@cloudkey-home:~# mtr --report --report-cycles=1000 --no-dns
> --show-ips --aslookup --psize=1500 --interval=0.01 192.168.254.1
> Start: Mon Jan 29 20:59:02 2018
> HOST: cloudkey-home   Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
>  1. AS???   192.168.1.1  98.4%  10000.3   0.3   0.3   0.4   0.0
>  2. AS???   192.168.254.1 0.0%  10000.7   0.7   0.7   4.2   0.1
> 
> https://linux.die.net/man/8/mtr
> 
> You can use -u flag to generate udp instead of icmp echo
> 
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Sterling Jacobson  
> wrote:
>> I think also you could do something similar with floodping?
>>
>>
>>
>> I used to use that a lot on wireless connections to test consistency (with
>> Mikrotik on each end)
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Gray
>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 5:08 PM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Adam,
>>
>>
>>
>> This looks like it will work quite well! So far with some tests I've found
>> 100% success, which is the foundation for some good test results.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Example from a VM through a couple Juniper switches to a MikroTik:
>>
>> # ping 10.11.1.3 -i 0.001 -f -c 1
>>
>> PING 10.11.1.3 (10.11.1.3) 56(84) bytes of data.
>>
>>
>>
>>  --- 10.11.1.3 ping statistics ---
>>
>> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 1ms
>>
>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.111/0.122/2.160/0.037 ms, ipg/ewma 1.000/0.118 ms
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll calculate just like you described + the average ping time to account
>> for ping replies lost at the beginning of the failure.
>>
>> I'm not looking to do this everywhere on everything (which would be a reason
>> to re-consider where my time should be spent), I'm doing testing on the
>> existing failover methods I've been using. If I find anything is really not
>> as good as I thought (or much better), then I can use that to guide future
>> design decisions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your help, Chris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>>
>> It also occurred to me just now that you might want to add -c 1 or
>> similar to end the ping command after a certain point.
>>
>> When you kill it with ctrl+c you can have a false drop reported because you
>> might have killed it in between a request and reply.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>>
>> From: "Adam Moffett" 
>>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>>
>> Sent: 1/29/2018 12:25:18 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Failover / Recovery Time Testing?
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe it's obvious, but this method ought to be fairly accurate IF the time
>> from one ping to another is very consistent.  I don't know the specific
>> cause of the cases where the command is unable to satisfy the request for 1
>> ping per .001 second.  Obviously if that cause leads to variance from one
>> ping to another then the accuracy suffers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if you don't get 1 ping per ms, you might be able to estimate as:
>>
>> (pings transmitted / time = time per ping)
>>
>> and
>>
>> (failover time = time per ping * (pings transmitted - pings received))
>>
>>
>>

[AFMUG] Inventory & schedule app for service only

[Timothy Steele]

I would love to use sonar but said they won't be a good fit.

We are doing home automation may split into a 2nd company to start a WISP
but for right now
We are in extreme need of a user friendly and cost effective inventory,
calendar, POS app wrapped into on will need it to intergrate with online
QuickBooks too


Our issue is we only normally do service once for a customer maybe every 4
months so to be billed monthly for theses customers dose not make sense if
anyone can recommend anything would be greatly appreciated

[AFMUG] Vehicle Lease

[Adam Moffett]

Lewis mentioned that he leases company vehicles.  What's the scenario 
where you'd rather lease than own a vehicle?

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Adam Moffett]

In SLC?

-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 1/30/2018 9:58:51 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150


I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.

From:Lewis Bergman
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go 
where we needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized 
van.
I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in 
thier fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with 
transmissions at about 60k.


There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the 
E class. We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. 
I think we get around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 
the connect got. It really didn't matter how great the milage was. The 
clearance was so low and the trees so small it just want holding up and 
couldn't get to the sure we needed to get to. If you drive only in the 
city and highway it would probably be fine. Although a small the will 
cause a flat.


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie 
 wrote:
Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check 
overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the 
e-series isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love 
to trade my E250 for one.


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
 wrote:
What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects 
and how well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little 
maintenance although gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the 
Transit Connects can’t hold up to dirt road life like the E-150.




Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

4226 S. 37 
th Street 
• Phoenix • AZ 85040


602-426-0542 

r...@triadwireless.net

www.triadwireless.net



“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

Re: [AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Timothy Steele]

What do you mean? Cellular one is known as the worst company alive
everywhere I've been

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 9:57 AM Gino A. Villarini  wrote:

> Hey Guys
>
> Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this
> should be repeated in the WISP industry?
>

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Chuck McCown]

I have been running them for about 4 years without issues.  

From: Lewis Bergman 
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:48 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where we 
needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier 
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with transmissions 
at about 60k.

There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E class. 
We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I think we get 
around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the connect got. It 
really didn't matter how great the milage was. The clearance was so low and the 
trees so small it just want holding up and couldn't get to the sure we needed 
to get to. If you drive only in the city and highway it would probably be fine. 
Although a small the will cause a flat. 

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie  
wrote:

  Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check 
overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the e-series 
isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to trade my E250 
for one.

  On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and how 
well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance although 
gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects can’t hold up 
to dirt road life like the E-150.



Rory Conaway • Triad Wireless • CEO

4226 S. 37th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040

602-426-0542

r...@triadwireless.net

www.triadwireless.net



“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”

[AFMUG] Cellular One approach to WISP

[Gino A. Villarini]

Hey Guys

Those who know the history behind Cellular One, don’t you think this should be 
repeated in the WISP industry?

Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

[Jaime Solorza]

Need to replace failing Cisco switches..these are 24 port switches with
only 4 to 6 ports needed.

Jaime Solorza

On Jan 30, 2018 1:31 AM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:

> Brocade is very close to Cisco. I think some of the defaults are different
> so if things don't go as planned that is what I would check first.
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:52 AM Dev  wrote:
>
>> Not sure about Brocade, but Juniper JunOS is quite a bit different, the
>> hierarchy and structure is different enough that there’s a bit of a
>> learning curve.
>>
>> However, if you really understand what’s happening in IOS (or RouterOS,
>> etc.), or routing in general, you should be able to port the concepts to
>>  since routing is routing, though Cisco (and Mikrotik and
>> others) are fond of calling normal routing things something proprietary
>> just to keep things confusing.
>>
>> Might you be able to tell us what kinds of things your Cisco is currently
>> doing?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> Can I copy Cisco switch configuration and import to a Brocade or other
>> switch?
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Ford Transit Connect versus E150

[Lewis Bergman]

I had one and got rid of it after 50,000 miles. It just wouldn't go where
we needed it. It was very small compared to any regular sized van.
I lease my feet from Enterprise and they have millions of vehicles in thier
fleet. My account manager told me they are seeing failures with
transmissions at about 60k.

There are lots of good options out there that compare favorably to the E
class. We choose the Dodge Ram Promaster series but there are others. I
think we get around 18 to 21. Not great compared to the roughly 25 the
connect got. It really didn't matter how great the milage was. The
clearance was so low and the trees so small it just want holding up and
couldn't get to the sure we needed to get to. If you drive only in the city
and highway it would probably be fine. Although a small the will cause a
flat.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 11:41 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> Is there much data yet?  They're pretty new here, might have to check
> overseas for long-term information.  Better get used to it though, the
> e-series isn't coming back.  I do like the Transits though, would love to
> trade my E250 for one.
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 10:34 PM, Rory Conaway 
> wrote:
>
>> What kind of maintenance issues do you have on the Transit Connects and
>> how well do they hold up versus the E-150s?  We have little maintenance
>> although gas mileage is 14-17mpg.  I’m worried that the Transit Connects
>> can’t hold up to dirt road life like the E-150.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>>
>> *4226 S. 37
>> th Street •
>> Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>>
>> *602-426-0542 <(602)%20426-0542>*
>>
>> *r...@triadwireless.net *
>>
>> *www.triadwireless.net *
>>
>>
>>
>> *“Yesterdays Home Runs don’t win todays games!”*
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Crisco Oil Switch question

[Lewis Bergman]

Brocade is very close to Cisco. I think some of the defaults are different
so if things don't go as planned that is what I would check first.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018, 12:52 AM Dev  wrote:

> Not sure about Brocade, but Juniper JunOS is quite a bit different, the
> hierarchy and structure is different enough that there’s a bit of a
> learning curve.
>
> However, if you really understand what’s happening in IOS (or RouterOS,
> etc.), or routing in general, you should be able to port the concepts to
>  since routing is routing, though Cisco (and Mikrotik and
> others) are fond of calling normal routing things something proprietary
> just to keep things confusing.
>
> Might you be able to tell us what kinds of things your Cisco is currently
> doing?
>
> >>
>
> Can I copy Cisco switch configuration and import to a Brocade or other
> switch?
>