Re: [AFMUG] Fiber patch cables retail in central il?

[George Skorup]

If you have aqua OM3 or OM4 MMF patch cables, use them. You'll have no 
problems at a couple hundred feet with 10 or 20km optics. Hell, even OM1 
or OM2 cables would probably work fine. Never tried it though.


I put some 20k FS SFPs in new switches in the office and of course 
didn't have any single-mode cables for the patch panel at the rack. 20 
and 30 meter runs to the remote switches. I used the OM4 cables I had 
for over a week. Worked fine.


On 3/3/2018 11:14 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
Lc lc single mode. Fs.com had an issue at the beginning of the week 
accepting cc payment. My contractor was going to bring spares. May 
just have him splice the factory ends he cut off the fiber. Was hoping 
some joint in bloominton carried them. This fiver to the radio thing 
is new to us. I only ordered the top side patch, not the bottom. Live 
and learn.


On the bench, multimode patches worked between the switches, 
anrhything to stop me from using those before the fs order drops? This 
is 100 and 200 foot.


On Mar 3, 2018 9:36 PM, "Justin Wilson" > wrote:


What do you need? Im near Danville Illinois and have some LC-LC
cables.   Also have some LC-SC.   I think all mine are 1 meter.

Other than that  I don’t know of anyone until you get to
Indianapolis.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net 

www.mtin.net 
www.midwest-ix.com 


On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Is there a place in central illinois that retails single mode lc
patch cables a guy could go pick 4 up at?

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber patch cables retail in central il?

[Steve Jones]

Lc lc single mode. Fs.com had an issue at the beginning of the week
accepting cc payment. My contractor was going to bring spares. May just
have him splice the factory ends he cut off the fiber. Was hoping some
joint in bloominton carried them. This fiver to the radio thing is new to
us. I only ordered the top side patch, not the bottom. Live and learn.

On the bench, multimode patches worked between the switches, anrhything to
stop me from using those before the fs order drops? This is 100 and 200
foot.

On Mar 3, 2018 9:36 PM, "Justin Wilson"  wrote:

What do you need? Im near Danville Illinois and have some LC-LC cables.
Also have some LC-SC.   I think all mine are 1 meter.

Other than that  I don’t know of anyone until you get to Indianapolis.


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:

Is there a place in central illinois that retails single mode lc patch
cables a guy could go pick 4 up at?

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Rory Conaway]

Many of those countries don’t give a crap who runs what.  You may need a 
license but for the most part, nobody is there to enforce it.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jaime Solorza
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 8:41 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

Friend of mine bought 10 Brand New Stratex 38GHz for $1500.00 in an auction and 
sold them someone in Brazil.   Not sure if 39GHz is a popular band there. Might 
look at surplus resellers.
Jaime Solorza

On Mar 3, 2018 7:02 PM, "Jason McKemie" 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>> 
wrote:
Yeah, wouldn't be so bad if the equipment had any residual value, I'm not sure 
it does though.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Seth Mattinen 
mailto:se...@rollernet.us>> wrote:
On 3/3/18 01:00, Jason McKemie wrote:
Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining a bit.


The whole thing was fishy with leases that can be canceled on a whim. Totally 
unsuitable for any serious deployment, it was just a spectrum grab and hope 
someone big would buy it.

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Jaime Solorza]

Friend of mine bought 10 Brand New Stratex 38GHz for $1500.00 in an auction
and sold them someone in Brazil.   Not sure if 39GHz is a popular band
there. Might look at surplus resellers.
Jaime Solorza

On Mar 3, 2018 7:02 PM, "Jason McKemie" 
wrote:

> Yeah, wouldn't be so bad if the equipment had any residual value, I'm not
> sure it does though.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/18 01:00, Jason McKemie wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining
>>> a bit.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The whole thing was fishy with leases that can be canceled on a whim.
>> Totally unsuitable for any serious deployment, it was just a spectrum grab
>> and hope someone big would buy it.
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber patch cables retail in central il?

[Justin Wilson]

What do you need? Im near Danville Illinois and have some LC-LC cables.   Also 
have some LC-SC.   I think all mine are 1 meter.  

Other than that  I don’t know of anyone until you get to Indianapolis. 


Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:15 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> Is there a place in central illinois that retails single mode lc patch cables 
> a guy could go pick 4 up at? 

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Mathew Howard]

Well, it could come in handy if you ever decide to start an ISP in one of
those African countries...

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:29 PM, Rory Conaway  wrote:

> Not any more.
>
>
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 3, 2018 7:03 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz
>
>
>
> Yeah, wouldn't be so bad if the equipment had any residual value, I'm not
> sure it does though.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
> On 3/3/18 01:00, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
> Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining a
> bit.
>
>
>
> The whole thing was fishy with leases that can be canceled on a whim.
> Totally unsuitable for any serious deployment, it was just a spectrum grab
> and hope someone big would buy it.
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Memcached

[Justin Wilson]

Why does anyone run a bridged network?
Why does anyone expose their management ip ranges to the internet?
Why does anyone not upgrade firmware to fix security vulnerabilities that are 
years old?

Shall I go on? :-)





Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Steve Jones  wrote:
> 
> Why does anyone have non acl input allow on infrastructure
> 
> On Mar 3, 2018 3:39 PM, "Justin Wilson"  > wrote:
> Do the following. 
> 
> 1.Dont have it listen on public ports.  
> 2.IPtables if you must have it listen on public ports for whatever reason.
> 3.Compile with libwrap and use tcpwrappers for the best security
> 
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net 
> 
> www.mtin.net 
> www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
>> On Mar 3, 2018, at 12:13 PM, David M > > wrote:
>> 
>> I block it on the input for any router we have.
>> I havent considered doing for the forward table.
>> 
>> On 3/2/2018 3:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> You are blocking port 11211, right?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>>   
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>>   
>>>  
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Rory Conaway]

Not any more.

Rory

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 7:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

Yeah, wouldn't be so bad if the equipment had any residual value, I'm not sure 
it does though.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Seth Mattinen 
mailto:se...@rollernet.us>> wrote:
On 3/3/18 01:00, Jason McKemie wrote:
Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining a bit.


The whole thing was fishy with leases that can be canceled on a whim. Totally 
unsuitable for any serious deployment, it was just a spectrum grab and hope 
someone big would buy it.

Re: [AFMUG] Memcached

[Steve Jones]

Why does anyone have non acl input allow on infrastructure

On Mar 3, 2018 3:39 PM, "Justin Wilson"  wrote:

> Do the following.
>
> 1.Dont have it listen on public ports.
> 2.IPtables if you must have it listen on public ports for whatever reason.
> 3.Compile with libwrap and use tcpwrappers for the best security
>
> Justin Wilson
> j...@mtin.net
>
> www.mtin.net
> www.midwest-ix.com
>
> On Mar 3, 2018, at 12:13 PM, David M  wrote:
>
> I block it on the input for any router we have.
> I havent considered doing for the forward table.
>
> On 3/2/2018 3:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> You are blocking port 11211, right?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

You folks confuse part 15 and common sense with the united states
judiciary.

On Mar 3, 2018 8:03 PM, "Steve Jones"  wrote:

> No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation.
>
> On Mar 3, 2018 3:57 PM, "Tim Hardy"  wrote:
>
>> So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of
>> damages, whether they mention RF interference or not.  I’m no attorney but
>> have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal
>> preemption.  Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference
>> protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in
>> harmony.
>>
>> Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just
>> weazel wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court
>> should see through this.
>>
>> All of this is crap..
>>
>> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST)
>> From: Mike Hammett 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>> Message-ID:
>> <1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> No, but that's unrelated.
>>
>> This is the meat of their claim.
>> 
>>
>> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
>> business
>> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
>> damage to his reputation
>> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
>> customers. 
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
>> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
>> contract rights and business
>> expectancy interest.
>> -
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

No, it lies upon willfull impedance of a contactual obligation.

On Mar 3, 2018 3:57 PM, "Tim Hardy"  wrote:

> So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of
> damages, whether they mention RF interference or not.  I’m no attorney but
> have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal
> preemption.  Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference
> protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in
> harmony.
>
> Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just
> weazel wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court
> should see through this.
>
> All of this is crap..
>
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST)
> From: Mike Hammett 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> Message-ID:
> <1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> No, but that's unrelated.
>
> This is the meat of their claim.
> 
>
> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
> business
> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
> damage to his reputation
> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
> customers. 
>
>
> 
>
> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
> contract rights and business
> expectancy interest.
> -
>

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Jason McKemie]

Yeah, wouldn't be so bad if the equipment had any residual value, I'm not
sure it does though.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 3/3/18 01:00, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining a
>> bit.
>>
>
>
> The whole thing was fishy with leases that can be canceled on a whim.
> Totally unsuitable for any serious deployment, it was just a spectrum grab
> and hope someone big would buy it.
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Tim Hardy]

Good example of FCC position on this subject and this particular band has
licenses - albeit lightly licensed.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-21A1.pdf

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

Maybe, but it doesn't sound like it... and even if they did, it's going to
be pretty tough to know that they're purposely trying to interfere versus
just too stupid or lazy to try and avoid your stuff.

We had a competitor put up a new 3.65ghz LTE radio awhile ago in the same
town where we've had a 3.65ghz Canopy AP for years... one day our Canopy
suddenly starts working like crap - I run the spectrum analyzer, and find
they have their radio running on a 20mhz channel right in the very center
of the band... meaning that the only way I could avoid them was to go down
to a 10mhz channel. Fortunately, we only had a few customers on it, so I
didn't care that much... but the fact that they put it right the middle of
the band instead of at one of the edges certainly annoyed me. That could
very well have been intentional, but I assume it was just poor planning on
their part... or maybe they even had some sort of semi-valid reason for
doing that - I have no way of knowing, and if it was intentional, I'm
fairly sure they wouldn't tell me if I asked.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Maybe they did.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mathew Howard" 
> *To: *"af" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 1:01:15 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can prove
> that somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of interfering
> with his contracts.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> No, but that's unrelated.
>>
>> This is the meat of their claim.
>> 
>> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
>> business
>> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
>> damage to his reputation
>> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
>> customers.
>> 
>>
>> 
>> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
>> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
>> contract rights and business
>> expectancy interest.
>> -
>>
>>
>> The rest of it, sure, is crap.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Jay Weekley" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>> Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
>> to stop using certain channels?
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
>> >
>> > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
>> > actually is.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Mike Hammett
>> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> > > IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> > Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> > > linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>> twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> > The Brothers WISP 
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> > *From: *"Jeremy" 
>> > *To: *af@afmug.com
>> > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
>> > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>> >
>> > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
>> > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
>> > the right to use dual-b

[AFMUG] Fiber patch cables retail in central il?

[Steve Jones]

Is there a place in central illinois that retails single mode lc patch
cables a guy could go pick 4 up at?

Re: [AFMUG] Introduction

[Lewis Bergman]

I thought that was it but it had been so long I want sure.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 3:41 PM Jon Lee  wrote:

> SRB - Service Record Book
>

Re: [AFMUG] WIFI Calling UGH!

[Jaime Solorza]

Sell them Surecall boostercarrier agnostic.  They simply work

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 3, 2018 2:59 PM, "Jon Lee"  wrote:

> We have had a few WiFi calling issues on our networks as well. What I have
> run into is people get the ATT "Booster" and hook it up right next to their
> wireless router and both are on 2.4 and what do you know you have
> interference / signal attenuation.
>
> I try to convince them to just unplug the booster and go straight WiFi or
> at least get some good separation distance between the two devices.
>
> --
> Jon Lee
> Off-Grid Networks
> c.928.793.2972 <(928)%20793-2972>
>

Re: [AFMUG] WIFI Calling UGH!

[Jon Lee]

We have had a few WiFi calling issues on our networks as well. What I have
run into is people get the ATT "Booster" and hook it up right next to their
wireless router and both are on 2.4 and what do you know you have
interference / signal attenuation.

I try to convince them to just unplug the booster and go straight WiFi or
at least get some good separation distance between the two devices.

-- 
Jon Lee
Off-Grid Networks
c.928.793.2972

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Tim Hardy]

So, their claim still rests upon harmful RF interference as the cause of
damages, whether they mention RF interference or not.  I’m no attorney but
have seen these types of claims routinely rejected due to federal
preemption.  Unlicensed operations have no prior right of nterference
protection and all parties are expected to work together to coexist in
harmony.

Claiming interference with "contracts and business expected" is just weazel
wording around the RF issue that is the root cause and any court should see
through this.

All of this is crap..

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 12:10:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Hammett 
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
Message-ID:
<1766334945.4658.1520100597514.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

No, but that's unrelated.

This is the meat of their claim.


As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
business
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
damage to his reputation
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
customers. 




If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract
rights and business
expectancy interest.
-

Re: [AFMUG] Introduction

[Jon Lee]

SRB - Service Record Book

Re: [AFMUG] Memcached

[Justin Wilson]

Do the following. 

1.Dont have it listen on public ports.  
2.IPtables if you must have it listen on public ports for whatever reason.
3.Compile with libwrap and use tcpwrappers for the best security

Justin Wilson
j...@mtin.net

www.mtin.net
www.midwest-ix.com

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 12:13 PM, David M  wrote:
> 
> I block it on the input for any router we have.
> I havent considered doing for the forward table.
> 
> On 3/2/2018 3:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> You are blocking port 11211, right?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>   
>>  
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert]

Astonished that you haven't already...   I feel like driving into his 
area and dropping a old bunch of M5's with junk antennas on fences 
pointed at his AP's with ethernet that looks like it's running into some 
random building...   (with the sigh taunting or not?)


On 3/3/18 11:58 AM, ch...@wbmfg.com wrote:

I would taunt him.
*From:* Mike Hammett
*Sent:* Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:33 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
No, but that's unrelated.

This is the meat of their claim.

As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the 
business
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only 
damage to his reputation
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to 
his customers.



If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable 
contract rights and business

expectancy interest.
-

The rest of it, sure, is crap.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Jay Weekley" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
to stop using certain channels?

Mike Hammett wrote:
 > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
 >
 > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
 > actually is.
 >
 >
 >
 > -
 > Mike Hammett
 > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 > 


 > Midwest Internet Exchange 
 > 


 > The Brothers WISP 
 > 
 >
 >
 > 
 > 
 > *From: *"Jeremy" 
 > *To: *af@afmug.com
 > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
 > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
 >
 > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
 > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
 > the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my
 > attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
 >
 > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones  > wrote:
 >
 > They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
 > threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
 > band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
 >
 > On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  > wrote:
 >
 > They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
 > transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
 > potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
 >
 > On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
 >
 > I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
 > technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15.
 > They're making a contract interference case.
 >
 > The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
 >
 >
 >
 > -
 > Mike Hammett
 > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 > 


 > Midwest Internet Exchange 
 > 


 > The Brothers WISP 
 > 
 >
 >
 > 
 > 
 > *From: *"Rory Conaway"  >
 > *To: *af@afmug.com 
 > *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
 > *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen t

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Rory Conaway]

We tell our customers to turn off their 5GHz modes just so we don't have to 
track it down.

Rory

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jay Weekley
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

2.5 GHz?  I'm not the sharpest bulb in the box or something like that so maybe 
I missed something.

https://www.airebeam.com/dualband/

"Dual Band Routers – Not on AireBeam’s Network Routers – Dual Band Prohibited

Dual Band routers broadcast on two frequencies, 2.5 GHz and 5 Ghz. 
AireBeam’s network uses the 5GHz spectrum.  When you operate a dual band router 
on the 5 Ghz frequency, you will create Radio Frequency Interference which will 
impair the quality of the signal that AireBeam broadcasts to your home and also 
those of your neighbors.

Using the 5 GHz frequency will NOT improve your wireless device’s performance. 
It will, in fact, degrade it.  So, AireBeam’s policy is to prohibit customer 
use of 5 GHz wireless equipment.  We cannot enforce this policy without the 
willing cooperation of our customers.  So, we respectfully solicit your support 
and compliance with this policy.

If you have a working, configured 5 GHz wireless router, we would like to offer 
you two solutions:

If it was purchased recently, please return it to the place of purchase and buy 
a 2.4Ghz router.
Alternatively, AireBeam will come to your home and we will trade you one of our 
2.4 GHz wireless routers (brand new out of the box) for your 5 GHz wireless 
router at no cost and we’ll configure the 2.4 GHz wireless router for you for 
free!"

Jay Weekley wrote:
> Yeah, they offered to take their dual band router off of their hands 
> and replace it with one of their 2.4 routers free of charge.
>
> Steve Jones wrote:
>> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads 
>> was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band 
>> routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" > > wrote:
>>
>> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
>> transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
>> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
>>
>> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
>> technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're
>> making a contract interference case.
>>
>> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> > >> tComputingSolutionsDeKalb 
>> >> ://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions
>> >> >
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> > >> /midwest-internet-exchange 
>> >> >
>> The Brothers WISP > >
>> > >
>>
>>
>> > >
>> 
>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" > >
>> *To: *af@afmug.com 
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are
>> just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m
>> going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s office
>> tomorrow.
>>
>> *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] COW trailer - looking to rent or buy

[Brett A Mansfield]

Like! 

Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Sterling Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> Riders of Rohan UNITE!
>  
> From: Af  On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 11:42 PM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] COW trailer - looking to rent or buy
>  
> Stupid autocorrect. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:04 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
> 
> What's a Rohan style one??
>  
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
>  wrote:
> They’re custom. I can make them as tall as you’d like. Freestanding monopole 
> style or Rohan style. Generator or solar powered. Etc
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
> 
> Brett,
>  
> You make the COWS? How tall?
>  
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
>  wrote:
> I recently started a company with my brother where we make these custom for 
> the same or less than the average cookie cutter ones. Let me know if you want 
> to buy a custom one. We have one to fit every budget and it only takes 2 
> weeks to manufacture and deliver. 
> 
> Thank you,
> Brett A Mansfield
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy  wrote:
> 
> I am pretty sure that it was Bill MacNamara that had a bunch of them from an 
> acquisition in Texas.
>  
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:15 PM, TJ Trout  wrote:
> someone was selling like 40 new ones they were surplus on WISPA list I think 
> about 6 months ago...
>  
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Gino A. Villarini  
> wrote:
>  
>  
>  
> 
> Gino A. Villarini
> 
> President
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/3/18 11:01, Mathew Howard wrote:
But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can 
prove that somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of 
interfering with his contracts.





Or that any competition in general is interfering with his contracts.

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

I would taunt him.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:33 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

No, but that's unrelated.

This is the meat of their claim.


As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the business
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage 
to his reputation
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his 
customers.
 


If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract 
rights and business
expectancy interest.
-


The rest of it, sure, is crap.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Jay Weekley" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels?

Mike Hammett wrote:
> That's likely unrelated to their claim.
>
> This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
> actually is.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> 
> *From: *"Jeremy" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general 
> public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
> the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my 
> attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones  > wrote:
>
> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
> threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
> band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
>
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  > wrote:
>
> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
> transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
>
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
> technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15.
> They're making a contract interference case.
>
> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> *From: *"Rory Conaway"  >
> *To: *af@afmug.com 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people
> are just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over
> and I’m going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s
> office tomorrow.
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •**CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37
> ^th
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040*
>
> *602-426-0542 *
>
> *r...@triadwireless.net 
>  

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

Maybe they did. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Mathew Howard"  
To: "af"  
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 1:01:15 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 


But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can prove that 
somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of interfering with his 
contracts. 


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett < af...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




No, but that's unrelated. 

This is the meat of their claim. 
 

As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the 
business 
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage 
to his reputation 
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his 
customers.  


 

If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an 
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract 
rights and business 
expectancy interest. 
- 



The rest of it, sure, is crap. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Jay Weekley" < par...@cyberbroadband.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels? 

Mike Hammett wrote: 
> That's likely unrelated to their claim. 
> 
> This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
> actually is. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions < http://www.ics-il.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL >< 
> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions >< 
> https://twitter.com/ICSIL > 
> Midwest Internet Exchange < http://www.midwest-ix.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange >< 
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix > 
> The Brothers WISP < http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp > 
> 
> 
> < https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg > 
>  
> *From: *"Jeremy" < jeremysmi...@gmail.com > 
> *To: * af@afmug.com 
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 
> 
> Righhht. They would have to make this claim against the general 
> public as well. No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
> the right to use dual-band routers. I would definitely have my 
> attorneys send a reply if I received this letter. 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
> > wrote: 
> 
> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook 
> threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual 
> band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" < i...@avantwireless.com 
> > wrote: 
> 
> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz 
> transmitters and business transmitters too... I mean Omni's 
> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!! 
> 
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> 
> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any 
> technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. 
> They're making a contract interference case. 
> 
> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions < http://www.ics-il.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL >< 
> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions >< 
> https://twitter.com/ICSIL > 
> Midwest Internet Exchange < http://www.midwest-ix.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix >< 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange >< 
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix > 
> The Brothers WISP < http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ > 
> < https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp > 
> 
> 
> < https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg > 
>  
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net 
> > 
> *To: * af@afmug.com  
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM 
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 
> 
> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people 
> are just fishing. I’ve got my attorneys looking it over 
> and I’m going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s 
> office tomorrow. 
> 
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •**CEO* 
> 
> * 4226 S. 37 
> < https://maps.google.com/?q=4226+S.+37&entry=gmail&source=g >^th 
> Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040* 
> 
> * 602-426-0542 * 
> 
> * r...@triadwireles

Re: [AFMUG] COW trailer - looking to rent or buy

[Sterling Jacobson]

Riders of Rohan UNITE!

From: Af  On Behalf Of Brett A Mansfield
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 11:42 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] COW trailer - looking to rent or buy

Stupid autocorrect.
Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Mar 2, 2018, at 9:04 PM, TJ Trout mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> 
wrote:
What's a Rohan style one??

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com>> wrote:
They’re custom. I can make them as tall as you’d like. Freestanding monopole 
style or Rohan style. Generator or solar powered. Etc
Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Mar 2, 2018, at 2:26 PM, Kurt Fankhauser 
mailto:lists.wavel...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Brett,

You make the COWS? How tall?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Brett A Mansfield 
mailto:li...@silverlakeinternet.com>> wrote:
I recently started a company with my brother where we make these custom for the 
same or less than the average cookie cutter ones. Let me know if you want to 
buy a custom one. We have one to fit every budget and it only takes 2 weeks to 
manufacture and deliver.
Thank you,
Brett A Mansfield

On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Jeremy 
mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am pretty sure that it was Bill MacNamara that had a bunch of them from an 
acquisition in Texas.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:15 PM, TJ Trout 
mailto:t...@voltbb.com>> wrote:
someone was selling like 40 new ones they were surplus on WISPA list I think 
about 6 months ago...

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Gino A. Villarini 
mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com>> wrote:





Gino A. Villarini

President

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


[cid:image001.png@01D3B2E9.37D5A9F0]

Re: [AFMUG] OT wind

[Mathew Howard]

You might want to do something about that...

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:54 AM,  wrote:

> Not on the soda fountain...
>
> *From:* TJ Trout
> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 8:59 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT wind
>
> You don't have battery backup haaha
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> Twice today the winds caused us to lose one phase at our shop.
>>
>> Odd the things that work and don’t work on two phases.
>> The 208 lights and my car charger work.
>> The 277 lights don’t.
>> Welders can start but not run.
>> 65 volts on the receptacles in my office.
>>
>> Most importantly the soda fountain with the Coke Zero does not work.
>>
>> I gave up and went home after the second outage.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

But again, the only way that claim is going to hold up is if he can prove
that somebody setup a transmitter for the specific purpose of interfering
with his contracts.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> No, but that's unrelated.
>
> This is the meat of their claim.
> 
> As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the
> business
> he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only
> damage to his reputation
> but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his
> customers.
> 
>
> 
> If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an
> injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable
> contract rights and business
> expectancy interest.
> -
>
>
> The rest of it, sure, is crap.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Jay Weekley" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
> to stop using certain channels?
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
> >
> > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
> > actually is.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> >  IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange 
> >  linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP 
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> > 
> > *From: *"Jeremy" 
> > *To: *af@afmug.com
> > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
> > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> >
> > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
> > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
> > the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my
> > attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones  > > wrote:
> >
> > They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
> > threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
> > band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  > > wrote:
> >
> > They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
> > transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
> > potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
> >
> > On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> > I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
> > technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15.
> > They're making a contract interference case.
> >
> > The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> >  IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange 
> >  linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP 
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> > 
> 
> > *From: *"Rory Conaway"  > >
> > *To: *af@afmug.com 
> >

Re: [AFMUG] WIFI Calling UGH!

[Matt Hoppes]

Nope. Just one customer using Republic Wireless having some odd issue. 
Otherwise it’s business as usual and I use it all the time myself. 

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 12:15, David M  wrote:
> 
> hello to the borg
> 
> I have a couple of customers who have an issue with wifi calling WTH!
> 
> Mainly ATT customer that has it. I am not sure its a port thing or a 
> fragmentation thingy or whatever because we do not block any
> 
> thing on the forwarding table except P2P and L7 stuff for reducing DMCA 
> warnings.
> 
> Anyone else seeing a trend with this wifi calling thingy :)
> 
> 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

No, but that's unrelated. 

This is the meat of their claim. 
 

As a result, you will be interfering with my client's contracts and the 
business 
he expects to realize from those contracts which will result in not only damage 
to his reputation 
but financial damages to him and, potentially, emotional suffering to his 
customers.  


 

If my client sustains any damages, we will immediately seek an 
injunction to prohibit your interference with my client's valuable contract 
rights and business 
expectancy interest. 
- 



The rest of it, sure, is crap. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jay Weekley"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 12:03:39 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels? 

Mike Hammett wrote: 
> That's likely unrelated to their claim. 
> 
> This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
> actually is. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions  
> 
>  
> Midwest Internet Exchange  
> 
>  
> The Brothers WISP  
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
> *From: *"Jeremy"  
> *To: *af@afmug.com 
> *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM 
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 
> 
> Righhht. They would have to make this claim against the general 
> public as well. No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
> the right to use dual-band routers. I would definitely have my 
> attorneys send a reply if I received this letter. 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones  > wrote: 
> 
> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook 
> threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual 
> band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers 
> 
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  > wrote: 
> 
> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz 
> transmitters and business transmitters too... I mean Omni's 
> potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!! 
> 
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> 
> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any 
> technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. 
> They're making a contract interference case. 
> 
> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions  
> 
>  
> Midwest Internet Exchange  
> 
>  
> The Brothers WISP  
>  
> 
> 
>  
>  
> *From: *"Rory Conaway"  > 
> *To: *af@afmug.com  
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM 
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 
> 
> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people 
> are just fishing. I’ve got my attorneys looking it over 
> and I’m going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s 
> office tomorrow. 
> 
> *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!”/ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Virus-free. www.avg.com 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

2.5 GHz?  I'm not the sharpest bulb in the box or something like that so 
maybe I missed something.


https://www.airebeam.com/dualband/

"Dual Band Routers – Not on AireBeam’s Network
Routers – Dual Band Prohibited

Dual Band routers broadcast on two frequencies, 2.5 GHz and 5 Ghz. 
AireBeam’s network uses the 5GHz spectrum.  When you operate a dual band 
router on the 5 Ghz frequency, you will create Radio Frequency 
Interference which will impair the quality of the signal that AireBeam 
broadcasts to your home and also those of your neighbors.


Using the 5 GHz frequency will NOT improve your wireless device’s 
performance. It will, in fact, degrade it.  So, AireBeam’s policy is to 
prohibit customer use of 5 GHz wireless equipment.  We cannot enforce 
this policy without the willing cooperation of our customers.  So, we 
respectfully solicit your support and compliance with this policy.


If you have a working, configured 5 GHz wireless router, we would like 
to offer you two solutions:


If it was purchased recently, please return it to the place of purchase 
and buy a 2.4Ghz router.
Alternatively, AireBeam will come to your home and we will trade you one 
of our 2.4 GHz wireless routers (brand new out of the box) for your 5 
GHz wireless router at no cost and we’ll configure the 2.4 GHz wireless 
router for you for free!"


Jay Weekley wrote:
Yeah, they offered to take their dual band router off of their hands 
and replace it with one of their 2.4 routers free of charge.


Steve Jones wrote:
They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads 
was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band 
routers and only ever use 2.4 routers


On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" > wrote:


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're
making a contract interference case.

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.



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


>

*From: *"Rory Conaway" mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are
just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m
going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s office
tomorrow.

*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!”/



 
Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Lewis Bergman]

I am not sure why a response is even warranted. I don't feel obligated to
respond unless I get a notice with a squiggly line down the left side.

If you did want to respond to something so rediculous I would just call,
not sure the effort of writing is warranted.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 10:03 AM Jay Weekley  wrote:

> Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area
> to stop using certain channels?
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> > That's likely unrelated to their claim.
> >
> > This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim
> > actually is.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> > <
> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><
> https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange 
> > <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP 
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> > 
> > *From: *"Jeremy" 
> > *To: *af@afmug.com
> > *Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
> > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> >
> > Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general
> > public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have
> > the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my
> > attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones  > > wrote:
> >
> > They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
> > threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
> > band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers
> >
> > On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  > > wrote:
> >
> > They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
> > transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
> > potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!
> >
> > On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> > I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
> > technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15.
> > They're making a contract interference case.
> >
> > The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> > <
> https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb><
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions><
> https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> > Midwest Internet Exchange 
> > <
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange><
> https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> > The Brothers WISP 
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>  
> > *From: *"Rory Conaway"  > >
> > *To: *af@afmug.com 
> > *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
> > *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
> >
> > Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people
> > are just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over
> > and I’m going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s
> > office tomorrow.
> >
> > *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!”/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
> >
> >   Virus-free. www.avg.com
> > <
> http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&u

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Robert Andrews]

Are they sending legal papers to the _neighbors_ of their customers? 
Or to Comcast for their open 5.8 transmitters on the cable feeds?


Boy what a rats nest they are trying to open.  I'll bet the Comcast 
lawyers posted it on their billboard and either laughed or said "maybe 
we should try this"...


On 03/03/2018 08:20 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was 
about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and 
only ever use 2.4 routers


On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" > wrote:


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical
claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a
contract interference case.

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.



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


>

*From: *"Rory Conaway" mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are
just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m
going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow.

*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] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

Do you think they have a right to tell everyone in their coverage area 
to stop using certain channels?


Mike Hammett wrote:

That's likely unrelated to their claim.

This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim 
actually is.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 





*From: *"Jeremy" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM
*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general 
public as well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have 
the right to use dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my 
attorneys send a reply if I received this letter.


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones > wrote:


They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook
threads was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual
band routers and only ever use 2.4 routers

On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" mailto:i...@avantwireless.com>> wrote:

They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...  I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15.
They're making a contract interference case.

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 


Midwest Internet Exchange 


The Brothers WISP 






*From: *"Rory Conaway" mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people
are just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over
and I’m going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s
office tomorrow.

*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!”/





 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jay Weekley]

Yeah, they offered to take their dual band router off of their hands and 
replace it with one of their 2.4 routers free of charge.


Steve Jones wrote:
They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads 
was about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers 
and only ever use 2.4 routers


On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" > wrote:


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz
transmitters and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's
potentially only a 100 feet away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any
technical claims. Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're
making a contract interference case.

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.



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


>

*From: *"Rory Conaway" mailto:r...@triadwireless.net>>
*To: *af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are
just fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m
going to make an inquiry to the Attorney General’s office
tomorrow.

*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!”/



 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/3/18 01:00, Jason McKemie wrote:
Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining 
a bit.



The whole thing was fishy with leases that can be canceled on a whim. 
Totally unsuitable for any serious deployment, it was just a spectrum 
grab and hope someone big would buy it.

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mike Hammett]

That's likely unrelated to their claim. 

This list has a very difficult time identifying what their claim actually is. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 11:03:18 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 


Righhht. They would have to make this claim against the general public as well. 
No court will uphold that the citizens do not have the right to use dual-band 
routers. I would definitely have my attorneys send a reply if I received this 
letter. 


On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 



They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was about 
how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only ever use 
2.4 routers 




On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews" < i...@avantwireless.com > wrote: 


They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters and 
business transmitters too... I mean Omni's potentially only a 100 feet away 
from a CPE!!! 

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 


I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims. 
Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference case. 

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions < http://www.ics-il.com/ > 
< https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL >< 
https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb >< 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions >< 
https://twitter.com/ICSIL > 
Midwest Internet Exchange < http://www.midwest-ix.com/ > 
< https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix >< 
https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange >< 
https://twitter.com/mdwestix > 
The Brothers WISP < http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ > 
< https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp > 


< https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg > 
 
*From: *"Rory Conaway" < r...@triadwireless.net > 
*To: * af@afmug.com 
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM 
*Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet 

Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just fishing. 
I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an inquiry to the 
Attorney General’s office tomorrow. 

*Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •**CEO* 

* 4226 S. 37 ^th Street • Phoenix • AZ 85040* 

* 602-426-0542 * 

* r...@triadwireless.net * 

* www.triadwireless.net < http://www.triadwireless.net/ >* 

** 

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

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[chuck]

I would not bother paying a lawyer to reply.  I would write the letter myself.  

From: Jeremy 
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 10:03 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general public as 
well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have the right to use 
dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my attorneys send a reply if I 
received this letter.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones  wrote:

  They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was about 
how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only ever use 
2.4 routers

  On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  wrote:

They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters 
and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's potentially only a 100 feet 
away from a CPE!!!

On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

  I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims. 
Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference case.

  The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.



  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions 
  

  Midwest Internet Exchange 
  

  The Brothers WISP 
  


  
  
  *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
  *To: *af@afmug.com
  *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
  *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

  Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just 
fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an 
inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow.

  *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!”/

[AFMUG] WIFI Calling UGH!

[David M]

hello to the borg

I have a couple of customers who have an issue with wifi calling WTH!

Mainly ATT customer that has it. I am not sure its a port thing or a 
fragmentation thingy or whatever because we do not block any


thing on the forwarding table except P2P and L7 stuff for reducing DMCA 
warnings.


Anyone else seeing a trend with this wifi calling thingy :)

Re: [AFMUG] Memcached

[David M]

I block it on the input for any router we have.

I havent considered doing for the forward table.


On 3/2/2018 3:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

You are blocking port 11211, right?



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Jeremy]

Righhht.  They would have to make this claim against the general public as
well.  No court will uphold that the citizens do not have the right to use
dual-band routers.  I would definitely have my attorneys send a reply if I
received this letter.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Steve Jones 
wrote:

> They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was
> about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only
> ever use 2.4 routers
>
> On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  wrote:
>
>> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters
>> and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's potentially only a 100
>> feet away from a CPE!!!
>>
>> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims.
>>> Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference
>>> case.
>>>
>>> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> >> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> >> /company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
>>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>>
>>> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just
>>> fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an
>>> inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow.
>>>
>>> *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] OT wind

[chuck]

Not on the soda fountain...

From: TJ Trout 
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 8:59 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT wind

You don't have battery backup haaha

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  Twice today the winds caused us to lose one phase at our shop.  

  Odd the things that work and don’t work on two phases.  
  The 208 lights and my car charger work.
  The 277 lights don’t.
  Welders can start but not run.
  65 volts on the receptacles in my office.  

  Most importantly the soda fountain with the Coke Zero does not work.

  I gave up and went home after the second outage.  

Re: [AFMUG] Question for the Kopacetic Kool Kat Group

[Steve Jones]

Charges? We dont need no stinkin charges. At least thats what people round
here say.

On Mar 2, 2018 11:18 PM, "Jaime Solorza"  wrote:

Thanks Lewis...

Jaime Solorza

On Mar 2, 2018 7:23 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:

> ~$500 per link the way I do it but Probably more than $1500 the way you do
> it. I run the path, export to Google Earth, then if any point is less than
> 50' from the ground I'll go look at those points if I don't know the area
> really well.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:50 PM Jaime Solorza 
> wrote:
>
>> How much do you guys charge to do a path analysis for a project with 4
>> PTP links? For 5GHz and 11GHz for example.  I got to location and take GPS
>> readings from each site.  Take measurements of roof heights, drive the
>> paths and take pictures of possible obstruction with height estimate and
>> size  Once I have this information I input data to path profile
>> software and run the path.  I make adjustments on tower heights where
>> required to achieve a clean path if possible.  I input radio information
>> and get an expected RSL performance within my fade margin requirements.  I
>> provide client several pages and plots with recommendations.   My prices
>> range from 350.00 to 1500.00 per link.
>>
>>
>> Jaime Solorza
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

They essentially did that. One of rhe many hateful facebook threads was
about how they were twlling customers not to use dual band routers and only
ever use 2.4 routers

On Mar 2, 2018 4:55 PM, "Robert Andrews"  wrote:

> They better start sending those letters to residential 5 GHz transmitters
> and business transmitters too...   I mean Omni's potentially only a 100
> feet away from a CPE!!!
>
> On 03/02/2018 10:47 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims.
>> Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference
>> case.
>>
>> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> > telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> > com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
>> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just
>> fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an
>> inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow.
>>
>> *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] anyone seen this letter yet

[Steve Jones]

This is what i keep saying. Theyre not going at part 15. Thats why i want
to see it at court. And what kind of judge gets the case. The right judge
would potentially try aome net nuetrality ploy in a ruling, even though its
completely bunk. We have activist judges who are no longer jurists.
Everybody wants their youtube clip.

On Mar 2, 2018 4:34 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

I'm not saying that I support with or agree with their claim, just that
their claim isn't based on FCC regulations at all.

Take their situation and transplant it to the equivalent worlds of coax,
twisted pair and glass. What happens then? Can equivalencies be made?




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 




Midwest Internet Exchange 



The Brothers WISP 




--
*From: *"Adam Moffett" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 3:01:28 PM

*Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

Hmm...If I made a contract saying I'd deliver 'X' performance to a
business, and I used a part-15 unlicensed radio, and someone came along and
their radio reduced my SNR; then yeah I suppose the radio interfering party
is also "interfering" with my contract.  I could also switch that client to
another band (2.4ghz, 24ghz, etc) to meet the obligations in my contract.
If all else failed I could meet my obligations by buying them cable or
fiber.  It would suck, and I'd lose money on the deal, but I could do it.
The terms of my contract can't alter FCC rules for radios.  Just as an
example, a contract between Adam Moffett and Verizon couldn't compel Mike
Hammett to alter his otherwise perfectly legal behavior.  Now suppose
forcing Mike Hammett to alter his behavior would give Verizon a competitive
advantage in gaining and retaining me as a customer.

I think I see what you're saying w/ regards to what they are saying about
contract interference.  I should hope no court sees it their way.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 3/2/2018 1:47:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet

I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims.
Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference
case.

The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 




Midwest Internet Exchange 



The Brothers WISP 




--
*From: *"Rory Conaway" 
*To: *af@afmug.com
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
*Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet





Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just
fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an
inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow.



*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] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

They're letter basically states that nobody else can use specific 5ghz
channels (which are "the commons") for certain purposes, because they're
using them. How is that not claiming an exclusive right to the commons?

Forrest's loading zone example isn't even quite accurate, because that
would only be trying to claim exclusive use at a specific time - this guy
wants everybody else kept out of the loading zone 24/7, because he might
need to make an emergency beer delivery at any point during the day, and if
somebody else happens to there he won't be able to fulfill his contract

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I don't see them claiming an exclusive right in the commons.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *ch...@wbmfg.com
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 5:19:07 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> Put part 15 proves they are operating in “the commons”.
> And a claim to exclusive right to “the commons” is a fool’s errand.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 2:34 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> This has been tried many times and has always failed.
> The law of the commons.
>
> http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-
> historical-concept-property-rights
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
>
> They have no rights to exclusive use.
> You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one ever
> gets filed.
> Just cite part 15 chapter and verse and make reference to the law of the
> commons.
>
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2018 11:47 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
> I think the key here is that Airebeam isn't making any technical claims.
> Nothing about the FCC or Part 15. They're making a contract interference
> case.
>
> The use of part-15 *may* be irrelevant in this claim.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Rory Conaway" 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:39:23 PM
> *Subject: *[AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>
>
>
>
>
> Two guys in Arizona got them but my guess is these people are just
> fishing.  I’ve got my attorneys looking it over and I’m going to make an
> inquiry to the Attorney General’s office tomorrow.
>
>
>
> *Rory Conaway **• Triad Wireless •** CEO*
>
> *4226 S. 37th 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] anyone seen this letter yet

[Mathew Howard]

Right, in that scenario, Joe probably has a valid case... but I haven't
heard anything that makes me believe that's what's happening here. What
actually is happening is the scenario where Fred happens to be using the
loading zone for the bar next door at the times Joe needs it. Fred can just
as easily argue that Joe is interfering with his contract.

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> Here's what I think is a more apt comparison, using your analogy:
>
> Let's assume that Joe's beer company wins an exclusive beer supply to a
> bar.   In order to deliver the beer that the bar needs, Joe needs access to
> a specific loading zone during a specific window of time.  Joe knows that
> the loading zone is typically unoccupied and he only really needs access to
> it for a few minutes during the window, so he's not worried.
>
> Enter Fred of Fred's beer company.   Fred is mightily pissed about Joe
> winning that contract.   So pissed that he decides to start occupying that
> loading zone throughout the entire window that Joe needs it to deliver the
> beer.   Because of this, Joe is unable to fulfill the terms of his contract
> - specifically because of the action of Fred.
>
> In this scenario, I suspect that Joe may have legal recourse against Fred,
> even though the loading zone was public property.   But, I'm not convinced
> that the use of a shared public resource (say if Fred also has to use that
> same loading zone to deliver to a bar next door, and it prevents Joe from
> delivering his beer).   I suspect that Part 15 use is more of the latter
> and less of the former.   It's a shared resource and common use of that
> resource is expected.  On the other hand, putting up a radio in test mode
> and pointing it at your competitor's radio may more like Fred's malicious
> tying up of the loading zone, and I suspect might subject you to a contract
> interference claim.
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:10 PM, James Howard  wrote:
>
>> Am I off-base in thinking that this would be a valid comparison?  (made
>> up of course)
>>
>>
>>
>> A company sets up a contract to deliver beer to a bar down the street
>> that requires exclusive use of the street they are both on to be able to
>> deliver the quantity of beer that’s promised.  They then send out a letter
>> to everyone else on that street telling them that they are being warned
>> that if they use the street it will interfere with that contract and their
>> ability to fulfill it and will face legal action.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems to me that if someone wants to claim exclusive use of something
>> they need to actually own it.  In the example I gave, the company could buy
>> all the property between themselves and their client and build their own
>> road but they can’t claim exclusive rights to the public road.  If they
>> want exclusive rights to RF they need to get licensed frequencies.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 3:35 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure part-15 has anything to do with their claim.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
>> [image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]
>> [image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]
>> [image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png] 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
>> [image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]
>> [image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> [image: http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]
>> [image:
>> http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>>
>> *From: *"Chuck McCown" 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, March 2, 2018 2:03:51 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] anyone seen this letter yet
>>
>> This has been tried many times and has always failed.
>>
>> The law of the commons.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://wealthofthecommons.org/essay/commons-%E2%80%93-histor
>> ical-concept-property-rights
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
>>
>>
>>
>> They have no rights to exclusive use.
>>
>> You can protect yourself pro se against a ridiculous complaint if one
>> ever gets filed.
>>
>> Just 

Re: [AFMUG] 39ghz

[Jason McKemie]

Yeah, I figured that is what they would do. Just rambling / complaining a
bit.

On Friday, March 2, 2018, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 3/2/18 6:15 PM, Jason McKemie wrote:
>
>> Just got the letter today.  They say they're going to be using it for
>> their 5G deployment - they won't be using it for that anywhere near the
>> area I currently have the link deployed unless they've significantly
>> changed their business plan or have figured out how to circumvent the laws
>> of physics...
>>
>
>
> They're just blanket killing them all.
>

Re: [AFMUG] Introduction

[Lewis Bergman]

Excuse my ignorance or perhaps, forgetfulness. SRB?

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 10:26 PM Jon Lee  wrote:

> Thanks for the Welcome.
>
> Lewis, that's an impressive SRB! In and out of the Corps.
>
>