[AFMUG] ePMP Release 2.3.3 available now

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

ePMP Release 2.3.3 is now posted on the Cambium support site @

https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/epmp/

This is a point release that addresses the AP accessibility issue from a 
different subnet. All other features introduced in R2.3.1 are still available.

Thanks
Sakid

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Some clarification on this topic –

Only the GPS Sync Connectorized unit can do any type of Sync. Via onboard GPS 
and the external puck (for added gain) or via CMM on the Ethernet side.
The CSM (Connectorized Module without sync) CANNOT be used as a sync device 
whatsoever.

As for the Force PTP, yes, it does use the GPS unit but sync is disabled in the 
Force PTP configuration.

Hope this helps.

Sakid

p.s. There is a topic around mixing CMM3/CMM4s/onboard as a GPS source across a 
tower. This is covered in the document
ePMP Configuration in a Frequency Reuse Deployment

Found at
https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/epmp/

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyson Burris @ Internet 
Comm. Inc via Af
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 5:44 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force

Yes in training it was confirmed that the ePmP can get power and sync through 
CMM 3&4 but the 3 may be tricky to workaround.

Also you can gps time your PTP link but it wasn't recommend.  You should use 
the Mac level for your ptp

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Paul McCall via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
Jeff,

It looks like you are saying that the connectorized radios withouth sync CAN 
indeed get sync from external source, CMM3, CMM4, sync injector.

I wasn’t aware that was the case

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists via 
Af
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force

The 110 PTP unit has sync on board...disabled...expect that's to keep us from 
buying that unit and swapping the radios for a connectorized unit without sync. 
 :-)

I expect that, like the connectorized radio without sync, that you can take 
sync from a different source, like a CMM4.


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

On Nov 22, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Paul McCall via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
For Cambium we have a very remote tower that feeds several other towers.  
Everything is OSPF but logically...

Tower R (the main remote tower - a 190 ft. Rohn 25G with several anti-twist 
devices) is "fed" by...
   Tower A - 26 miles away - UBNT 3.65ghz Rocket M5 AND a Mikrotik RB912 5 Ghz
   This commercial tower (Tower A) has over 300Mbit of usable bandwidth and 
feeds about 75 to 85 Mbit to Tower A
   Tower B - 9 miles away - UBNT 5ghz Rocket M5
   This tower (Tower B) is a 90 ft. Rohn 25G

Tower R then feeds...
   Tower C - 12 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 50 Mbit of usable 
bandwidth.  (Rohn 25G 120 ft.)
   Tower D - 15 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable 
bandwidth.  (Rohn 25G 120 ft.)
   Tower E - 17 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable 
bandwidth.  (Rohn 25G 120 ft.)
   Tower F - 14 miles away - Mikrotik RB912 - 5 GHz - 40 Mbit of usable 
bandwidth.  (Rohn 25G 120 ft.)

To get all this to work without Sync was quite a frequency juggling act.  There 
are other towers in the area and towers C, D, E, F connect (chain) to each 
other on the "back side" and we use a couple 3.65Ghz UBNT radios on the 
backside links.

The challenge...

First of all, I need more BW to each tower, but mostly Tower C.  And, I need 
better consistency... at times the links do not perform as I expect and then I 
get customer complaints etc. I hate that.

So, what would be the best solution that Cambium can recommend other than a ton 
of licensed links?  Obviously, the gear I am using now is inexpensive.

The PTP110 solution ... 2ms unsyncedcan it sync, now or tomorrow?   
Latency with sync?

Paul


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:47 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Force



Hi,

Please allow me to clarify.

The Force 110 uses the Connectorized UnSync'd unit with the two 10/100 FE ports.

The Force 110 PTP uses the Connectorized GPS Sync'd unit with the
single GigE port that supports 802.3af PoE in addition to proprietary PoE. GPS 
capabilities will be disabled (but the radio can still use the on board GPS 
chip to track satellites and provide coordinates).

The 2ms latency is achieved purely through software changes in Release 2.4 and 
will apply to both products.

Reading this spec sheet.

http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/files/PRODUCTS/ePMP/FORCE/Force%20110%20PTP_Oct2014.pdf



LATENCY (nominal, one way) < 2 ms (PTP Mode), 6 ms (Flexible Frame
Mode) , 17 ms (GPS Sync Mode)

Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Its 20dBm

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard via Af
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:19 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules

That's very helpful!

Can someone from Cambium answer what the max transmit power is for ePMP in 
5150-5250? specifically, for two eForce 100 in a point-to-point configuration.

From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of Bruce Collins via Af [af@afmug.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 5:06 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules
The short answer is that PTP 650 does support 5.15 GHz.

To access 5.15GHz you will need to be on release 01-21 and then go to the 
support website to add 5.1GHz license key (no charge).  Because of the 
out-of-band emissions requirements there are automatic backoffs in power on the 
band edges of the 5.15GHz channels.   Below are all the details on the 
implementation of 5.15GHz FCC band on the PTP 650.

Let me know if you have further questions.
Regards,
Bruce

Product Manager
Cambium Networks



1.   The grant covers the PTP 650, PTP 650S and PTP 650L

2.   The band is only applicable to FCC radios used in the U.S. and U.S. 
territories.

3.   Existing customers will need to go the license manager page on the 
support website to update their license key adding 5.15 GHz (at no charge)

4.   The UNII-1 band officially covers 5.15 GHz to 5.25 GHz at a maximum of 
53dBm EIRP and does not required DFS for radar avoidance.  HOWEVER, it does 
have very stringent out-of-band emissions requirements which make the maximum 
EIRP unlikely to be met by any commercial products.

5.   The out of band emissions requirements and the fact that UNII-1 band 
is adjacent to the 5.2GHz band that does require radar avoidance means that 
each product approved under UNII-1 will have different capabilities.  
LINKPlanner has been updated to take these rules into account if you plan a 
link in the UNII-1 band with the PTP 650.

6.   The PTP 650 supports the following EIRP levels dependent on channel 
bandwidth.  G stands for the gain of the antenna with maximum antenna gain of 
23dBi.

a.   5MHz:   33 - G dBm  (so for example, with the integrated 23dBm antenna 
the max tx power is 33dBm - 23dBi = 10dBm)

b.  10MHz: 31 - G dBm

c.   15MHz: 37 - G dBm

d.  20MHz: 36 - G dBm

e.  30MHz: 35 - G dBm

f.40MHz: 30 - G dBm

g.   45MHz: 30 - G dBm



7.   Further there are band edge back-offs shown below:

8.
Channel Bandwidth

Channel Frequency

Backoff

5 MHz

Below 5158.0 MHz

7 dB



5158 to 5200 MHz

3 dB



Above 5200.0 MHz

0 dB

10 MHz

Below 5164.0 MHz

8 dB



5164.0 MHz and above

0 dB

15 MHz

Below 5170.0 MHz

14 dB



5170 to 5181 MHz

6 dB



Above 5181.0 MHz

0 dB

20 MHz

Below 5175.0 MHz

13 dB



5175 to 5187 MHz

6 dB



Above 5187.0 MHz

0 dB

30 MHz

Below 5187.0 MHz

11 dB



5187 to 5200 MHz

5 dB



Above 5208.0 MHz

0 dB

40 MHz

Below 5200.0 MHz

6 dB



5200.0 MHz and above

0 dB

45 MHz

Below 5205.0 MHz

7 dB



5205.0 MHz and above

0 dB




















From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:53 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules

im on 1-21 it only has the option for 5.2 .54 and 5.8 in the GUI, maybe im 
missing something

Does anyone have a link to an accurate up to date cheatsheet for the entire 
5ghz band and its subsets?

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Mathew Howard via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
I'm pretty sure I got an email from Cambium awhile back saying it did...

yeah, here it is... looks like it needs a license key to enable it.  
http://www.cambiumnetworks.com/pressreleases/2014/07/28/cambium-networks-ptp-650-receives-fcc-grant-to-operate-in-5150-to-5250-mhz

From: Af [af-boun...@afmug.com] on behalf of That 
One Guy via Af [af@afmug.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 5.1 PMP rules
crud, 650 doesnt do 5.1, that is disappointing

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:34 PM, That One Guy via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
cambium linkplanner is locking it at 36 on ptp
I havent looked on the ptp650 to see if its locked
Man i hope somebody can provide some evidence that it can go up to 53, that 
would get a pretty big load of my back right now

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Mathew Howard via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
That's definitely not right... maybe you have numbers from the old 5150-5250 
rules?

PtMP is 36dBm EIRP, and PtP is 53dBm EIRP - however, because of the OOBE stuff, 
I'm not aware of anything that can actually do 53dBm. Ubiquiti stuff is all 
limited to 36dBm, ePMP lets me set the Tx power up to 20dBm with the antenna 
size set to 30dBi (in PtP mode).
_

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

We do have the Force 110 which allows for the ePMP Connectorized module or the 
GPS unit to mount in the back similar to the rocket dish (Integrated). 
Unfortunately, the radome is not there today and not common with Laird/UBNT

Sakid

p.s. Please visit us at http://community.cambiumnetworks.com



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Alan West via Af
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 4:01 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP 2' dish

Not out there, as far as I know. The Force 110 units from Cambium should hit 
vendors late this month. An improvement, but still not a Nanobeam as far as 
assembly.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:59 PM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via 
Af mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:

So I guess this doesn't exist. Or nobody cares.

On 11/12/2014 10:15 AM, George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) via Af wrote:
> Is there a 2' dish that has an integrated radio mount like the Rocket
> dish for ePMP radios? And that possibly uses the same radome that fits
> on Laird/UBNT style parabolics? I thought I remember seeing this
> somewhere but I'm having no luck finding it. Maybe I'm imagining the
> Force100 dish or something? I guess I can always use a Pac/Laird HD
> dish, but integrated radio mount would be nice.

Re: [AFMUG] Power limit on ePMP Aux port?

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Adam,
The aux port is a 30V Canopy PoE and is limited by the wattage of the PoE brick 
and how much the SM consumes. The SM at its worst will consume about 7 watts so 
you really have 8 watts available using the standard brick which support 
15watts. You could use our 450 PoE brick which is a 20watt supply but would 
have to look for something greater that support Canopy PoE in to support 
18watts out of the auxiliary port.
On a separate note, we will be introducing an accessory that will (very 
cheaply) convert the auxiliary port to a standard 802.3af output but will still 
be limited by what power supply you use.

Sakid


-Original Message-
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett via Af
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:44 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] Power limit on ePMP Aux port?

Anybody know?

I want to power an 18Watt device on the Aux port.seems like that's 
reasonable, but I didn't see anything on the spec sheet or manual about what 
the limit is.

Re: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS Weirdness

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Mike,
It is a bizarre issue and we are actively looking at it. We will update you 
shortly on what this is.

Sakid


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett via Af
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 2:51 PM
To: Animal Farm
Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP GPS Weirdness

I had an AP die on the tower. Okay, that needs to be investigated, but that's 
not why I'm here now. I upgraded all three firmwares to 2.2 (primary, secondary 
and GPS). I configure the unit (while plugged into a dual pol omni). I take it 
up the tower and swap it out. Everything lights up. I go to the ground to 
double check everything. Ethernet light blinking away...  no pings. I find out 
that somehow between configuring it at home and taking it up the tower...  it 
reverted back to 1.0.3. I upgrade it to 2.2 again (GPS didn't need it, but both 
other firmware banks did). All of the settings are still there. Okay, weird


However, the client keeps dropping. I'm finally able to capture the screen when 
there's stuff on it (attached)... -73 signal (IIRC, it was a fair amount above 
the noise). 100% link quality. 15% link capacity. MCS2 for uplink and downlink. 
Link drops. Comes back 15 - 20 seconds later.


WTF?


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

[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Jeremy,
If you happen to have 4 channels available then you are on the right path in 
designing one tower with ABAB and then the next with CDCD with the directions 
of neighboring same channel sectors pointing away from each other if possible.
Yes, frequency front/back does go away in the ABCD(when on a single tower) 
model as you don’t have back to back frequency reuse. Long story short, if you 
have 4 channels available then going ABAB and then CDCD on adjacent sectors and 
then ABAB again would probably go a long way in keeping self interference down 
to a minimum.

Hope this helps.

Sakid


From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+sakid.ahmed=cambiumnetworks@afmug.com] On 
Behalf Of Jeremy Grip via Af
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:02 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question

Sriram, that brings up my next question. The channel planning model for reuse 
is great for Idealtown, located on a flat plain where one can permit and build 
POPs on a tidy rectilinear grid. (This may be just west of Rolling Meadows).  I 
wonder about the utility of channel reuse in say, Realtown, where the topology 
is quite bumpy, forestation is patchy, and the operator takes what he can get 
in the way of locations for POPs. This is pretty much my situation, and 
probably plenty of other folks’ too.

I’m trying to think of a broad rule set for channel planning in those 
conditions. For instance, I’m planning to expand into an area with existing 
structures (silos). In the attached image I’ve modeled coverage in Radio Mobile 
with an RSSI of –66dBm or better at the SM, assuming an ePMP AP/90°sector at 
power limit for max modulation and Force (25dBi) SMs (antenna pattern is just 
an omni for planning purposes). Max cell radius is 6km. This is over actual 
topology, of course, and using a publicly available ground cover (clutter) 
database, so it should be a pretty good prediction of which POP gets best 
signal to a given location. Each POP has its own color, with some reuse where 
it wouldn’t be confusing. (This is RM’s “combined cartesian” coverage, so there 
are plenty of locations where more than one POP can provide better than -66, 
but the POP with the strongest SS gets to put its color on the pixel.)

Some of the POPs won’t want a full 4-sector deployment, but many, probably 
most, will. Am I better off, generally speaking, with the recommended 4-channel 
model, with two of the four channels on each POP (and the other two channels on 
the adjacent POP) than I am with the two channel model? And if so, would I just 
maintain the same azimuths for all of the POPs—e.g. channel A always at 0° and 
180° and C at 90°
and 270 ° on POPs 1,3, 5…, then channel B always at 0° and 180° and D at 90° 
and 270 ° on POPs 2,4,6…? Then maybe we could just leave out unnecessary AP 
quadrants on POPs where they weren’t going to do any good.

Is there any reason to try the ABAB reuse model if four channels are available? 
Does the necessity of setting Frequency Reuse “Front” and “Back” go away in the 
ABCD model—and can anyone explain just what that’s doing?

Whew.

Oh, yeah—can you just software switch between the GPS timing signal on the 
(internal patch or) local GPS port and the signal on the Cat5/6 from a CMM, if 
you want that kind of redundancy?


From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+grip=nbnworks@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sriram 
Chaturvedi via Af
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 5:45 PM
To: That One Guy via Af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question


Hi,



Yes, the GPS chip comes with an internal patch antenna. The internal patch 
antenna is automatically disabled once you connect the external GPS antenna 
(and auto enables when you disconnect the external antenna). If you think the 
radio itself doesn't have clear LOS to the sky, then you can use the external 
antenna and place it elsewhere on the installation to get better LOS to the sky.



There are a couple of documents on our support site 
(https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/epmp​) you can read through that 
will help answer questions about ABAB deployment using ePMP.



Thanks,
Sriram




From: Af 
mailto:af-bounces+sriram.chaturvedi=cambiumnetworks@afmug.com>>
 on behalf of That One Guy via Af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 4:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question

the APs come with an antenna for GPS, but its never been clear to me whether 
there is also an internal patch

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Jeremy Grip via Af 
mailto:af@afmug.com>> wrote:
So would you be able to switch over to the onboard sync remotely? Do you need 
an antenna for each AP for using it? Do you think it’s as precise as using an 
CMM4 (or SyncPipe Deluxe w/Gig Injector) if not as robust? If all POPs are 
sync’d with same Up/Dn ratio and max cell distance and they’re talking to the 
same birds, is it pretty much the same?


From: Af 
[mailto:af-bounces+grip

Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Gino,
Yes, we are working on some solutions for lowering latency.
More on that in the near future.

Sakid


From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+sakid.ahmed=cambiumnetworks@afmug.com] On 
Behalf Of Gino Villarini via Af
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 11:13 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question

Sriam

Any work being done to lower the latency on the Epmp system,?



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr



From: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Reply-To: "af@afmug.com" 
mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Date: Friday, September 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM
To: "af@afmug.com" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question

Hi Jeremy,

The doc uses an example terrain (much less the one west of Rolling Meadows ☺) 
and no way is it representative of all possible terrains out there. As a 
general rule of thumb, you don’t want two sectors on nearby towers facing each 
other operating on the same frequency. But if there is enough terrain between 
them providing plenty of isolation (attenuation), then it’s certainly worth a 
try. The four channel reuse on multiple towers is recommended, again as a rule 
of thumb, but you can certainly populate your network of POPs with two channels 
if the terrain allows it. Bumpy terrain, plenty of tree covers etc. will 
certainly help your cause in reusing two channels across towers.

If you have four channels available, by all means throw them on your four 
sector tower. This mitigates the need for GPS sync. However, if the four 
channels are adjacent channels without much guard band, then GPS sync is still 
recommended. In an unsynchronized system using ABCD adjacent channels, you may 
need twice the amount of guard band as the channel size when using adjacent 
channels (read alternate adjacent channel since you need the guard band). With 
a GPS synchronized system, on ePMP, 5MHz guard band is recommended between 
adjacent channels.

Regarding the “Front Sector” and “Back Sector” settings recommended in the doc 
(and User Guide), you will have to follow that. That is part of the magic sauce 
in ePMP that make GPS sync work on this platform.

Please give link planner 
a try if you haven’t already. Even though it doesn’t predict or help with 
deploying a synchronized network, it does predict performance of your 
deployment (each POP) taking the terrain, antenna azimuth/elevation and many 
other key factors into account.

And lastly, like Adam pointed out, you can switch the GPS source on the GUI. 
However, it doesn’t auto switch sources like PMP 450. This is something we 
still need to implement on ePMP.

Thanks,
Sriram

From: Af [mailto:af-bounces+sriram.chaturvedi=cambiumnetworks@afmug.com] On 
Behalf Of Adam Moffett via Af
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 8:41 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium Newbie Question


I doubt anybody can make that perfect grid shown in the white papers.  You just 
get as close as is reasonable.

When ePMP first came out there was a document describing the two channel layout 
vs four channels and it spelled out that there are specific cases where you are 
guaranteed to get self interference in a two channel system.

You can switch sync sources in the web GUI.

According to the guys at the ePMP Tour in Albany, the "Front" and "back" sector 
designations are strictly informational.  Like the "sectorID" in Canopy.  The 
setting has no actual technical affect, so if you don't need it as a mnemonic 
device you can ignore it.
Sriram, that brings up my next question. The channel planning model for reuse 
is great for Idealtown, located on a flat plain where one can permit and build 
POPs on a tidy rectilinear grid. (This may be just west of Rolling Meadows).  I 
wonder about the utility of channel reuse in say, Realtown, where the topology 
is quite bumpy, forestation is patchy, and the operator takes what he can get 
in the way of locations for POPs. This is pretty much my situation, and 
probably plenty of other folks’ too.

I’m trying to think of a broad rule set for channel planning in those 
conditions. For instance, I’m planning to expand into an area with existing 
structures (silos). In the attached image I’ve modeled coverage in Radio Mobile 
with an RSSI of –66dBm or better at the SM, assuming an ePMP AP/90°sector at 
power limit for max modulation and Force (25dBi) SMs (antenna pattern is just 
an omni for planning purposes). Max cell radius is 6km. This is over actual 
topology, of course, and using a publicly available ground cover (clutter) 
database, so it should be a pretty good prediction of which POP gets best 
signal to a given location. Each POP has its own color, with some reuse where 
it wouldn’t be confusing. (This is RM’s “combined cartesian” coverage, so there 
are plenty of 

Re: [AFMUG] Epmp Test tool UDP or TCP?

[Sakid Ahmed via Af]

Its UDP -

Thanks
Sakid


From: af@afmug.com [mailto:af@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Epmp Test tool UDP or TCP?

What protocol is used?



Gino A. Villarini
President
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
www.aeronetpr.com
@aeronetpr