Re: [AFMUG] Source for 6 gauge grounding wire and ends

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

Check out electro wire we purchase all our telco flex cable from them.

http://www.electrowire.com/


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com

From: Josh Luthman via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, October 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: [AFMUG] Source for 6 gauge grounding wire and ends

Does anyone know where I can find this?  The hardware store doesn't have 
anything even close (10 gauge was their largest).  I also need the fork or 
round ends to clamp onto the wire.


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

Re: [AFMUG] Customer install cost sensitivity

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

I’ve always had a grip about a device of this type.  We run a wireless company 
as well as a fttx company and the one thing I can say about the fttx (goon) 
vendors is they gave done a really good job about giving the ONT’s really great 
intelligence , I wish the wireless vendors would take a page from there book.  
Regardless if it’s fiber in the middle or wireless those end point devices 
should have the intelligence as they do in the gpon world.  mff / dhcp snoop / 
mac base limiting / ip based limiting ect / bw profiles / cos management.  Just 
my 2 cents


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: Jeremy via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Sunday, October 5, 2014 at 7:58 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer install cost sensitivity

This is the best idea I've ever heard for a WISP business invention.  I LOVE 
the idea.  It would be really hard to justify the cost on customer installs.  I 
could see maybe bundling it into every business install.  It also becomes one 
more reason why our business installs are better.  We could power cycle it 
remotely, view statistics, etc.  I think I could justify it on every business 
account.

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 5:47 PM, timothy steele via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
A cap that keeps ants/worms on of SM for tree installs would be nice

—
Sent from Mailbox



On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:45 PM, That One Guy via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:

then youre already putting in 5-20 dollars worth of cable, 20-35 dollars in 
surge protection. 5-15 dollars in mounting hardware in incidental costs aside 
from the CPE there isnt really much breathing room for residential 29-39 dollar 
connections. Especially in cases like us who eat the CPE cost.
The reality is it would be just one more piece of equipment for customers to 
plug in incorrectly, or even better, completely bypass.
That being said, I want it, and I want it to display the MAC address of the 
attached device so that when a customer gets a new router to self provision 
they can look on the display and know what it is, we still have CS staff 
telling them to look on the sticker on the router.. fucking dipshits.


E

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Josh Reynolds via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Honestly, a RB2011 fills that niche pretty well. Lock the LCD to display only 
WAN bandwidth, and disable the touchscreen. Techs can log into the RB2011 with 
the admin credentials and check on the wireless clients, interface errors, run 
speed tests (tcp) to the headend of your network, etc.

$5/mo for router management a month is what we charge, and the people that have 
the service love it.

Josh Reynolds, Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS, www.spitwspots.com

On 10/05/2014 01:18 PM, TJ Trout via Af wrote:

I would love to find a router that has poe output and all of the diagnostic 
features you mentioned. It would be nice if the customer could just look at the 
router to see the status of the connection up down or otherwise.

On Oct 5, 2014 2:13 PM, "Chris Fabien via Af" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:

I'd say you are correct. Would love to have the functionality but even at $75 I 
couldn't justify the cost.

On Oct 5, 2014 5:08 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account) via Af" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Following up on the previous email about product ideas, I have an idea for a 
product which at least I think would be really cool, but I also think would 
likely be a big flop, just because of the apparent cost sensitivity of installs.

It seems to me that it would be nice to replace the power injector at customer 
sites with more of an intelligent device.   One that provides functionality 
like traffic metering, cable diagnostics, customer-location speed tests, and so 
on.   The unit would have jacks for the radio, the customer equipment, and 
power.   It would also have a display which shows real-time usage data for the 
customer to be able to determine for themselves what their current internet 
consumption is.   There are a lot of natural outgrowths from this such as 
watchdog reset of the radio itself, automatic problem notification to the WISP, 
etc.   My goal would be to instrument this as much as possible.

If you think of this as a 'smart power meter' for internet, with diagnostic 
tools built in, then you've got the basic idea.  This is not intended to 
replace the customer router/nat device, and will only be a Layer 2 device as 
far as traffic goes.  There will likely be some limited traffic shaping 
possible based on the underlying ethernet swtich chipset.

Unfortunately, these can't be a $20 device.   $75 might be doable for higher 
volumes, but 

Re: [AFMUG] Pole fees and process ?

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

Restoration can be quite expensive for underground.  Some cities try and use 
your construction as there stop gap to fix there st’s.  We’ve been asked to re 
pave and entire st and fix all the side walks for submitting to go 120 ft of 
underground from a vault to a pole.  Things like that can kill a deal.  Poles 
are fairly straight forward it can be a little frustrating to have to deal with 
multi pole vendors on a single run it happens and is totally workable.  Just my 
2 cents


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: Jason McKemie via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at 2:52 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Pole fees and process ?

Considerably cheaper than buried if the pole owner is reasonable. It can start 
to get close if they're a pain in the ass. There are up front pole fees and 
pole rent, the fees are generally one time and the rent is recurring.

-Jason

On Tuesday, October 14, 2014, That One Guy via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
cheaper than buried? Is that in upfront costs? arent pole fees recurring though 
or is that normally just a one time fee?


On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Robbie Wright via Af 
> wrote:
All over the board depending on your locality unfortunately. Some cities own 
the poles, some power companies own the poles, and other utilities own the 
poles. Find the poles you want to go on, get their ID numbers off each pole, 
and then contact each pole owner to get a contract. In our locality, the power 
company owns 99% of the poles and they are pretty easy to work with. Other 
states you'll have pole attach agreements with 4 companies, each with different 
rules, different engineering specs, and different prices. "Make ready" fees are 
what you'll get hit with, meaning the pole owner will charge you if they have 
to improve the poles to take the load/make room for your cable.

Some states will require you to be a CLEC, others won't. Some cities or 
counties will require a franchise agreement, others won't.


Robbie Wright
Siuslaw Broadband
541-902-5101

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 1:50 PM, TJ Trout via Af 
> wrote:

How do you go about placing aerial fiber on power poles and what is the normal 
fee structure? What license do you need or permits to be able to place aerial 
cable? Some type of franchise right? Any estimates on aerial fiber cost for 
labor,fees, materials etc?




--
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the parts 
you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you can't get them 
together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not use a hammer. -- 
IBM maintenance manual, 1925

Re: [AFMUG] Fiber recommentations

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

If your equipment is sfp based I would go with single mode, it will save you 
the pain and suffering when you need to go further then 300m


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: "Timothy D. McNabb via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 2:25 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: [AFMUG] Fiber recommentations

We’re going to need to deploy a fiber connection from a new collo to where we 
are mounting our equipment on the tower. Picking a specific fiber is new to me, 
I was wondering what you guys recommend using when you need to deploy fiber up 
a tower? Are you using single or multi mode? What do you recommend that has 
worked for you and can withstand an outdoor environment?

Any information is helpful.

Regards,

Timothy McNabb
Network Administrator
Velociter Wireless, Inc
(209)838-1221 x107

Re: [AFMUG] Colocation

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

This is very true and if you dig into the large publicly traded colo companies 
you will find out there money isn’t really made off of space and power it’s 
made from the xconnects between cages.  We pay 10x more in xconnects then we do 
in space and power.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com

From: Peter Kranz via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:06 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Colocation

I think the short answer is:

I’ve got 350kW of co-location.. It’s easy to break even and hard to make 
money.. there is a lot of competition from people who will do anything to 
undercut your pricing.

You need a lot of things to do it well, and it all adds up.

-Peter

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of TJ Trout via Af
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Colocation


Has anyone made a successful try at offering colocation and would like to point 
out some details on Do's and don't's?  Seems like a great way to build 
additional revenue off of completely unused upstream bandwidth ? Is it worth 
the hassle and DDoS?

Re: [AFMUG] Colocation

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

Equinix and Coresite it is.  What I find crazy is we pay more for a T1 to get 
between 2 cages on the same floor then we do for it to get from san francisco 
to los angeles.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com

From: Mike Hammett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 at 6:21 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Colocation

Equinix, right?  *sigh*



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL>


From: "Carlos Alcantar via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 6:58:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Colocation

This is very true and if you dig into the large publicly traded colo companies 
you will find out there money isn’t really made off of space and power it’s 
made from the xconnects between cages.  We pay 10x more in xconnects then we do 
in space and power.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com<mailto:car...@race.com> / 
http://www.race.com

From: Peter Kranz via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 9:06 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Colocation

I think the short answer is:

I’ve got 350kW of co-location.. It’s easy to break even and hard to make 
money.. there is a lot of competition from people who will do anything to 
undercut your pricing.

You need a lot of things to do it well, and it all adds up.

-Peter

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of TJ Trout via Af
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 10:17 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] Colocation


Has anyone made a successful try at offering colocation and would like to point 
out some details on Do's and don't's?  Seems like a great way to build 
additional revenue off of completely unused upstream bandwidth ? Is it worth 
the hassle and DDoS?

Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

+1 on this we have actually complained enough about this the vendor that we 
usually buy most of our cable from give us an extra 20’.  We have also refused 
20k feet of fiber as the shipping company laid the spool on it’s side.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com

From: Mark Radabaugh via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2014 at 3:13 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

I would be willing to bet the cable markings are right, and that the 
operator/machine spooling the cable missed by 20' since they are looking at the 
measuring wheel/encoder rather than the cable markings.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Sean Heskett via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:

what's 20 feet amongst friends?!?!



On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Nate Burke via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
I just got some 5000' spools of Belden 7919a cable in, and looking at the cable 
foot markings from both ends of the cable, they're all about 20' short.  When I 
get 1000' spools, they've always been spot on (as far as matching the cable 
markings) Is this just the discrepancy in the tolerance of the cable markings 
at that distance?

Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

Its easier to just make it a standard to keep all spools standing up that way 
there is no question amongst employees.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com<mailto:car...@race.com> / 
http://www.race.com<http://www.race.com/>


From: Nate Burke via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2014 at 8:44 PM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

Wouldn't the weight of the cable have something to do with it as well?  There's 
not as much weight with a cat5 vs a 144 armored fiber pushing on the cables 
below it.  I guess if you have 50k of cat5 on an 8' spool, but I can't imagine 
there's enough weight with 5k to hurt anything.  The whole spool is only like 
150lbs

On 11/2/2014 9:07 PM, Jason McKemie via Af wrote:
Not as big of a deal with smaller reels.

On Sunday, November 2, 2014, Ken Hohhof via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Uh-oh.  Other than the big Superior-Essex reels, I have them all stored that 
way.  Stacked in fact.  Otherwise they roll around.  I guess I’ll have to 
change that.

From: Chuck McCown via Af
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 8:24 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

Never lay any reel of cable on its side.  The layers and the reel ends will 
slip and shift and compress.  You can have crushing and abrasions, especially 
when a layer comes to the end and is up against the reel end.

We always refuse any reel that comes in on its side.

This a a very long time telco industry standard.

From: Darin Steffl via Af
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 7:06 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

Why can't you lay a fiber spool on its side?

On Sunday, November 2, 2014, Carlos Alcantar via Af 
> wrote:
+1 on this we have actually complained enough about this the vendor that we 
usually buy most of our cable from give us an extra 20’.  We have also refused 
20k feet of fiber as the shipping company laid the spool on it’s side.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','car...@race.com'); / 
http://www.race.com

From: Mark Radabaugh via Af 
Reply-To: "javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');" 

Date: Saturday, November 1, 2014 at 3:13 PM
To: "javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com');" 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Accuracy of on cable foot markings

I would be willing to bet the cable markings are right, and that the 
operator/machine spooling the cable missed by 20' since they are looking at the 
measuring wheel/encoder rather than the cable markings.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID


Sean Heskett via Af  wrote:

what's 20 feet amongst friends?!?!



On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Nate Burke via Af 
 wrote:
I just got some 5000' spools of Belden 7919a cable in, and looking at the cable 
foot markings from both ends of the cable, they're all about 20' short.  When I 
get 1000' spools, they've always been spot on (as far as matching the cable 
markings) Is this just the discrepancy in the tolerance of the cable markings 
at that distance?



--
Darin Steffl
Minnesota WiFi
www.mnwifi.com<http://www.mnwifi.com/>
507-634-WiFi
[http://www.snoitulosten.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/facebook-small.jpg]<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>
 Like us on Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi>

Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

+1 on the hikvision cameras they have worked great we have been buying them 
from http://wrightwoodsurveillance.com


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: Jason McKemie via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

I remember them being brought up, who is a good reseller for their cameras?

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Wireless Admin via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Hikvision does everything but auto-launch rockets. Now that I think about it, 
it could easily do that via it’s external relay control.

Steve B.


From: Af 
[mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]
 On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

3 and 4 are the kickers for me.

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Adam Moffett via Af 
> wrote:

Ok what I hated about AV1:
1) No management of disk usage (though it seemed to use 90% of the available 
space for video, which I admit is a reasonable default)
2) "Recordings" shown in the web interface seemed to stay forever.  Or at least 
a listing of an available recording was shown, along with a little thumbnail 
image long past the point where the actual recording on disk was gone.  I never 
saw one go away without me deleting it.
3) No good way to skim or search lots of video.  You had to click on each 
recording and watch it.if someone told you that the event you're looking 
for was "sometime on tuesday" that meant a lot of tedium.
4) No bulk export:  You could export individual recordings, but if you wanted 
"all the video from Tuesday afternoon" it was not happening without exporting 
individual clips over and over again.
5) No export to locally attached storage.  Couldn't burn to DVD, couldn't copy 
to USB disk.
6) Oh yeahno full quality uncompressed export.
7) Video not actually stored as videostored as still images with a database 
that kept a record of which images belonged to what video.  Which meant no 
(good) workaround to any of the export problems.

The web interface was so amazing and beautiful that it distracted from the fact 
that some of the basic functions of a DVR were missing.  Since it was free I 
might have used it for something less critical, like monitoring my own house, 
but it was not good for actual security.

Glad to hear the new version is better, maybe someday I'll try it.

Hard to believe that someone didn't like a Ubiquiti web system. That's what 
they do probably better than anyone else  unless he meant the backend of 
AV1...  which was terrible. Rewritten in AV2 and then rewritten again in AV3. 
Not really hearing any complaints about the new interface or new cameras. Well, 
nothing major.

Losing RSTP? I couldn't care less. They actually added it back in, but it's 
sourced from the server vs. the camera.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


From: "josh--- via Af" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:46:09 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

We're on "av3", aka unifi-video now
On November 5, 2014 9:38:16 AM AKST, Adam Moffett via Af  wrote:

UBNT took away RTSP in recent firmwareso I'm not sure if you can

actually use them with anything other than Air Vision anymore.  I

haven't tried AirVision2.   I also was not fond of AirVision, it sucked.



 I know this has been hashed and re-hashed, but I'm wondering what

 others are having luck with as far as IP cameras go.  I'm needing

 something with night vision and decent resolution, under $200.  Are

 the new Ubiquiti cameras worth looking at?  I wasn't terribly fond of

 AirVision last time I used it, is BlueIris any better for use with

 these? Other recommendations?  Thanks.



 -Jason



--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

We have been using genius vision  http://www.geniusvision.net/ for nvr type of 
solution


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com<mailto:car...@race.com> / 
http://www.race.com<http://www.race.com/>


From: Wireless Admin via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, November 7, 2014 at 7:20 AM
To: "af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

Software comes with Camera. We use storage on camera.

Steve B.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:02 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

What are you using software / DVR-wise with these?

On Friday, November 7, 2014, Carlos Alcantar via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
+1 on the hikvision cameras they have worked great we have been buying them 
from http://wrightwoodsurveillance.com<http://wrightwoodsurveillance.com/>


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / 
car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com<http://www.race.com/>


From: Jason McKemie via Af 
>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" 
>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

I remember them being brought up, who is a good reseller for their cameras?

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Wireless Admin via Af 
> wrote:
Hikvision does everything but auto-launch rockets. Now that I think about it, 
it could easily do that via it’s external relay control.

Steve B.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:25 PM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

3 and 4 are the kickers for me.

On Wednesday, November 5, 2014, Adam Moffett via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:

Ok what I hated about AV1:
1) No management of disk usage (though it seemed to use 90% of the available 
space for video, which I admit is a reasonable default)
2) "Recordings" shown in the web interface seemed to stay forever.  Or at least 
a listing of an available recording was shown, along with a little thumbnail 
image long past the point where the actual recording on disk was gone.  I never 
saw one go away without me deleting it.
3) No good way to skim or search lots of video.  You had to click on each 
recording and watch it.if someone told you that the event you're looking 
for was "sometime on tuesday" that meant a lot of tedium.
4) No bulk export:  You could export individual recordings, but if you wanted 
"all the video from Tuesday afternoon" it was not happening without exporting 
individual clips over and over again.
5) No export to locally attached storage.  Couldn't burn to DVD, couldn't copy 
to USB disk.
6) Oh yeahno full quality uncompressed export.
7) Video not actually stored as videostored as still images with a database 
that kept a record of which images belonged to what video.  Which meant no 
(good) workaround to any of the export problems.

The web interface was so amazing and beautiful that it distracted from the fact 
that some of the basic functions of a DVR were missing.  Since it was free I 
might have used it for something less critical, like monitoring my own house, 
but it was not good for actual security.

Glad to hear the new version is better, maybe someday I'll try it.
Hard to believe that someone didn't like a Ubiquiti web system. That's what 
they do probably better than anyone else  unless he meant the backend of 
AV1...  which was terrible. Rewritten in AV2 and then rewritten again in AV3. 
Not really hearing any complaints about the new interface or new cameras. Well, 
nothing major.

Losing RSTP? I couldn't care less. They actually added it back in, but it's 
sourced from the server vs. the camera.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


From: "josh--- via Af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 12:46:09 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations

We're on "av3", aka unifi-video now
On November 5, 2014 9:38:16 AM AKST, Adam Moffett via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:

UBNT took away RTSP in recent firmwareso I'm not sure if you can

actually use them with anything other than Air Vision anymore.  I

haven't tried AirVision2.   I also wa

Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

[Carlos Alcantar via Af]

We have done some extensive testing with the ookla speedtest.net server 
software as we wanted to optimize our speedtest server to be able to support 
multi gig’s /sec.  What we have found that firefox/opera actually preformed the 
best.  We also noted that going from win 8 to win 8.1 network performance 
dropped.  OS X seemed to have performed the same across different versions of 
the OS.  We ran head to head on 10gig ports with the speedtest server just to 
make sure there was no outside influencers.  We ended up finding the right 
hardware/ os / browser match for our field tech laptops that would net us 950+ 
on the speedtest server.  Network interface drivers seem to be a big issue once 
you get into these higher speeds.


Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / 
http://www.race.com


From: Sterling Jacobson via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, December 19, 2014 at 5:38 PM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

Interesting.

I talked to Ookla about Gigabit, and they sent me information and some links to 
their stuff.

I can get about 5-600Mbps locally to my machine, but I’ve got some work to do 
before it shows 960Mbps it should be doing.


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hogg via Af
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 6:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3998189472

I get 250x250...have multi-gig here...

On our own directly connected, I get 780's-840's.

Regards,
Chuck

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Sterling Jacobson via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
I just got my new speedtest.net server running with 
Dave's help. Thanks Dave!

It's at http://avative.speedtest.net


Can any of you get over 500Mbps to it?
It has a 10Gbps adapter and sits on a 10Gbps circuit, but I think I've got 
something cutting it to 600Mbps...

I also talked to Ookla and they know about a problem with Chrome on Windows 
where flash isn't allowing it to do the full Gbps. So for now use a Mac? Or use 
IE on windows if you have a Gigabit connection to test on 
speedtest.net



-Original Message-
From: Sterling Jacobson
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 12:42 PM
To: 'af@afmug.com'
Subject: RE: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

Good point, I'll check for that!

Since Chrome pulls the same context on all my machines that I log into Google, 
that makes sense why it would affect more than just one.



-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Chris Wright via Af
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 9:58 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

Chrome plugins causing the drop, perhaps? Even naked Chrome runs pretty heavy 
on resources.

Chris Wright
Velociter Wireless

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Sterling Jacobson via Af
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 1:14 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

AFMUG server must have stripped the jpgs, because they are attached in the send 
folder, but when I received my own message the jpgs were gone.

Anywho, I am seeing several hundred megs difference between IE and Chrome on 
several machine to several different servers in Utah.

I get about 900Mbps both ways with IE and about 6-700Mbps in Chrome.

-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of Bill Prince via Af
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Speedtest.net optomized for IE??

no attachment...

--
bp


On 12/12/2014 10:20 AM, Sterling Jacobson via Af wrote:
> I'm not sure what is going on, but recently I've noticed Ookla has changed 
> speedtest.net so it works a lot better with IE.
>
> And it USED to work just fine with Chrome, but they changed something in the 
> past month.
>
> Anyone else seeing this?
>
> It's very apparent at Gigabit speeds, see attached.
>
> Same everything except using IE instead of Chrome.
>
> Noticed this on several machines and several host servers on 
> speedtest.net
>
>