Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP
Yes, CNUT can not be behind a NAT function and Configure HTTP Service to use the proper IP address. (Update, HTTP Server Configuration) Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP did you got it running? i have same Problem..Uploading image that´s all!! 2015-03-11 1:10 GMT+01:00 Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net: Thanks for commenting here. Ill post the answer here once I get it running. I tried turning firewall off but no dice. Steve From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:51 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP I had the same problem and I gave up several weeks ago. Not enough time to mess with it, so I've been upgrading radios using their GUIs for now. It appears to me that ePMP uses CNUT's HTTP/S server to download the images, which is different than use AP as file server for Canopy auto-update. CNUT doesn't push the image to the device. So make sure the CNUT HTTP server is running. And you firewall isn't in the way. And/or NAT issues. And I could be totally wrong. On 3/10/2015 3:42 PM, Wireless Admin wrote: Glad at least someone did it.� I�m on with technical support now.� I can do a view, refresh and it communicates with the device.� Here�s the associated CNUT log: � 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� Updating Selected Network Elements process start .. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� ePMP-2.4.pkg3 loaded. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� Starting Update Process .. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� Queue NE:192.168.23.4 for updating 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Checking Network Element Status (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Current = 2.3.3, U-Boot 9350_PX 1.1.4.a (Mar� 9 2014 - 22:27:28), 2.4 Ghz GPS Synchronized (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Using Package Q:\Motorola\cnut3 packages\epmp\v2.4\ePMP-2.4.pkg3 (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 WARN�� ������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Sending Upgrade command with URL: http://192.168.131.111:80/141183694/ePMP-GPS_Synced-v2.4.tar.gz (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Upgrade command sent successfully. (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Monitoring the device for Update. (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Uploading image to device (SITE= CambiumNetworks) � It hangs here and I have to cancel the process. � Steve B � From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP � Yeah I've used it. � Make sure your usernames and passwords are correct On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Has anyone been able to get CNUT working on the ePMP platform?� I�m running CNUT 4.8 and can�t get past �Uploading Image to device� then upload failed.� There is no entry in the radio Log file on the failed attempt. � Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] SyncInjector Early Early Beta self-resetting firmware.
I'm running it on several injectors with no issue. Stats show it is working and there have been no outages where I have had to reactivate ports. The Sync light looks spastic since it does not blink in sync with injectors that have not been upgraded. Forrest said He understood why and it should not be an issue. That's all I know. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:15 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] SyncInjector Early Early Beta self-resetting firmware. It looks like I'm pretty much ready to release this code - provided that the upgrade-into-real-devices tests goes well tomorrow.However, I'm not particularly eager to throw this up on the website for anyone to grab based on the fact that I'm going to be not in the office for the entirety of next week. If someone wants this code to test, I'm happy to send them a care package this Tuesday or Wednesday (providing I don't hit an unexpected snag with the packaging and upgrade tests tomorrow), provided they understand that if something goes wrong I'm probably not going to be able to throw together an emergency fix until at least the 20th. Is the resetting syncinjector firmware general release yet or not? Not seeing it on website.
Re: [AFMUG] epmp update path
Same problem here. Truck Roll Pin Reset :-( Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Tyler Treat Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:55 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp update path So it seems like between 2.3.4 and 2.4 this thing decides to stop allowing changes to be saved. Any ideas? ___ Mangled by my iPhone. ___ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___ On Aug 19, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Tyler Treat tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com wrote: S the AP side won't allow saving changes? Any ideas? ___ Mangled by my iPhone. ___ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___ On Aug 19, 2015, at 10:44 PM, Tyler Treat tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com wrote: Taking this a step further- Eptp mode. Any caveats to turning this on? ___ Mangled by my iPhone. ___ Tyler Treat Corn Belt Technologies, Inc. tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com ___ On Aug 19, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Tyler Treat tyler.tr...@cornbelttech.com wrote: Thanks guys! I'll try it tonight! _ From: Af af-boun...@afmug.com on behalf of Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:02 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp update path All my new radios are 1.2.3. I upgrade to 2.4.3 for the last couple weeks no problem. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Aug 19, 2015 5:55 PM, Mathew Howard mhoward...@gmail.com wrote: I haven't seen any issues going from as far back as, I think, 1.2 on the bench directly to 2.4.3. On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Joe Novak jno...@lrcomm.com wrote: on the bench I took and upgraded from whatever FW they came with (it had a black interface) to the newest no issue that I know of. YMMV as always On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:42 PM, David dmilho...@wletc.com wrote: I think you will need to move to 2.4 before jumping to 2.4.3 On 08/19/2015 04:33 PM, Tyler Treat wrote: Hey folks -� We have a mix of ePMP radios that we want to get to current firmware. � Is there a specific upgrade path from 1.4.0 to current, or can i just move to 2.4.3 Thanks Tyler
Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/
We're getting about the same DB Levels as the KP Performance dish. Can't speak to SNR. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:29 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Lol they are absolutely real that's for sure. The hardware is definitely fantastic but I'm not sure of RF performance. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Hold on to your shorts. The Force 200's are for real. We have several demo units and they ROCK .. I don't know cost or availability but I'd wait if possible if I were you. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ We have been using KP dishes but I am not impressed with range. Of course this is for the integrated SM and I dont think they work probably as well as the connectorized. I just wish they would come out with a 2.4 force dish. The signal is about 5dbi better on the 5ghz force and connectorized vs the integrated on the KP dish. Craig _ From: Brandon Yuchasz li...@gogebicrange.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:10:12 PM Subject: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ I know 2.4 is a waist land in much of the US but we are able to use it here and have been deploying a mix of it and 5ghz epmp. The force 110 is great in the 5ghz but I am struggling to find a good 2.4 option for antennas. What are you guys using for longer links on this? Right now we are considering the rocket dishes with a epmp bracket to convert the mouting. But at 150 a pop I am hoping for other options. Best regards, Brandon Yuchasz GogebicRange.net www.gogebicrange.net http://www.gogebicrange.net/
Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/
Hold on to your shorts. The Force 200's are for real. We have several demo units and they ROCK .. I don't know cost or availability but I'd wait if possible if I were you. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ We have been using KP dishes but I am not impressed with range. Of course this is for the integrated SM and I dont think they work probably as well as the connectorized. I just wish they would come out with a 2.4 force dish. The signal is about 5dbi better on the 5ghz force and connectorized vs the integrated on the KP dish. Craig _ From: Brandon Yuchasz li...@gogebicrange.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:10:12 PM Subject: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ I know 2.4 is a waist land in much of the US but we are able to use it here and have been deploying a mix of it and 5ghz epmp. The force 110 is great in the 5ghz but I am struggling to find a good 2.4 option for antennas. What are you guys using for longer links on this? Right now we are considering the rocket dishes with a epmp bracket to convert the mouting. But at 150 a pop I am hoping for other options. Best regards, Brandon Yuchasz GogebicRange.net www.gogebicrange.net http://www.gogebicrange.net/
Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/
Force 200 (2.4Ghz) Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:28 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Are these 2.4ghz or 5ghz? On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: We're getting about the same DB Levels as the KP Performance dish. Can't speak to SNR. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:29 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Lol they are absolutely real that's for sure. The hardware is definitely fantastic but I'm not sure of RF performance. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Hold on to your shorts. The Force 200's are for real. We have several demo units and they ROCK .. I don't know cost or availability but I'd wait if possible if I were you. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ We have been using KP dishes but I am not impressed with range. Of course this is for the integrated SM and I dont think they work probably as well as the connectorized. I just wish they would come out with a 2.4 force dish. The signal is about 5dbi better on the 5ghz force and connectorized vs the integrated on the KP dish. Craig _ From: Brandon Yuchasz li...@gogebicrange.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:10:12 PM Subject: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ I know 2.4 is a waist land in much of the US but we are able to use it here and have been deploying a mix of it and 5ghz epmp. The force 110 is great in the 5ghz but I am struggling to find a good 2.4 option for antennas. What are you guys using for longer links on this? Right now we are considering the rocket dishes with a epmp bracket to convert the mouting. But at 150 a pop I am hoping for other options. Best regards, Brandon Yuchasz GogebicRange.net www.gogebicrange.net http://www.gogebicrange.net/
Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/
Yes. Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Brandon Yuchasz Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:02 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Steve, Are you using them as in Beta? I am assuming they will be a good solution but its hard to deploy tower sites and assume the client is coming soon. Best regards, Brandon Yuchasz GogebicRange.net www.gogebicrange.net http://www.gogebicrange.net/ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:46 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Force 200 (2.4Ghz) Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:28 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Are these 2.4ghz or 5ghz? On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: We're getting about the same DB Levels as the KP Performance dish. Can't speak to SNR. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 4:29 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ Lol they are absolutely real that's for sure. The hardware is definitely fantastic but I'm not sure of RF performance. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Hold on to your shorts. The Force 200's are for real. We have several demo units and they ROCK .. I don't know cost or availability but I'd wait if possible if I were you. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Craig House Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:16 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ We have been using KP dishes but I am not impressed with range. Of course this is for the integrated SM and I dont think they work probably as well as the connectorized. I just wish they would come out with a 2.4 force dish. The signal is about 5dbi better on the 5ghz force and connectorized vs the integrated on the KP dish. Craig _ From: Brandon Yuchasz li...@gogebicrange.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 8:10:12 PM Subject: [AFMUG] What high gain antennas are you guys using for epmp 2.4/ I know 2.4 is a waist land in much of the US but we are able to use it here and have been deploying a mix of it and 5ghz epmp. The force 110 is great in the 5ghz but I am struggling to find a good 2.4 option for antennas. What are you guys using for longer links on this? Right now we are considering the rocket dishes with a epmp bracket to convert the mouting. But at 150 a pop I am hoping for other options. Best regards, Brandon Yuchasz GogebicRange.net www.gogebicrange.net http://www.gogebicrange.net/
Re: [AFMUG] Any idea what this is?
Looks like power company smart meter. Likely 900Mhz. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 6:24 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Any idea what this is? If it's not a 2.4GHz AP, it might be a 900MHz radio for water meters. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of CARL PETERSON Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 3:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Any idea what this is? Carl Peterson PORT NETWORKS
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3
We saw and reported the scanning status problem on 2.4.2. They will show scanning all the while responding to a ping on the wan side. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 1:09 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 We've got one around -72 i believe, now with 2.4.2 the screen isn't always showing the status of the SM. I mean, i can monitor the screen, obviously it's still connected, but it reports scanning or not associated. That's with almost all of them. Most of ours are in the 60s. I did see some re-regging with our -72 unit...I may try 2.4.2 and see if it's more stable. - Original Message - From: Wireless Admin mailto:wirel...@htn.net To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 The most obvious problem is a one mile link with LOS. RSSI is 52 in both directions with no obvious interference problems. The worst interferers are 76dBm on the SM side and 66dBm on the AP side. With 2.4.2 the link is stable. Load 2.4.3 and it disassociates with the AP frequently. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 10:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 running a mix of both here, not really seeing anything that screams at me. what, exactly, are you seeing? i'm actually going BACK to 2.4.2 cause i miss my real time graphs... heck, i've been almost too busy to post here. i'm sure ya'll have missed me ;) - Original Message - From: Josh mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Luthman To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 Sorry/welcome :( Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jul 11, 2015 6:06 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Damn, I was hoping I was not the only one. Steve b. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 I just wanted to see how others were doing with the latest Software release (2.4.3) for the ePMP platform. The first tower (2.4Ghz) we installed it on developed problems almost right away. Links that were stable with 2.4.2 became unreliable. We rolled the software back and forth several times to see if there was just some new interference but the results seem conclusive. Links that are fine with 2.4.2 are not fine with 2.4.3. We tried loading 2.4.3 on only the AP's and not on the SM's and still had issues. We also tried 2.4.3 on the SM's and not the AP's but still no stability. I realize we're special here but REALLY. Is it possible that I'm the only one with issues... Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] source for 320 sm boots
Here's the part numbers you're looking for. LTWRJ-00BMMA-S7005 RJ-00BMMA-SL7005 Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 12:56 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] source for 320 sm boots does anyone have a part number and vendor for these boots or something thats compatible? -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3
The most obvious problem is a one mile link with LOS. RSSI is 52 in both directions with no obvious interference problems. The worst interferers are 76dBm on the SM side and 66dBm on the AP side. With 2.4.2 the link is stable. Load 2.4.3 and it disassociates with the AP frequently. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 10:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 running a mix of both here, not really seeing anything that screams at me. what, exactly, are you seeing? i'm actually going BACK to 2.4.2 cause i miss my real time graphs... heck, i've been almost too busy to post here. i'm sure ya'll have missed me ;) - Original Message - From: Josh mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Luthman To: af@afmug.com Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 Sorry/welcome :( Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Jul 11, 2015 6:06 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Damn, I was hoping I was not the only one. Steve b. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 I just wanted to see how others were doing with the latest Software release (2.4.3) for the ePMP platform. The first tower (2.4Ghz) we installed it on developed problems almost right away. Links that were stable with 2.4.2 became unreliable. We rolled the software back and forth several times to see if there was just some new interference but the results seem conclusive. Links that are fine with 2.4.2 are not fine with 2.4.3. We tried loading 2.4.3 on only the AP's and not on the SM's and still had issues. We also tried 2.4.3 on the SM's and not the AP's but still no stability. I realize we're special here but REALLY. Is it possible that I'm the only one with issues... Steve B.
[AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3
I just wanted to see how others were doing with the latest Software release (2.4.3) for the ePMP platform. The first tower (2.4Ghz) we installed it on developed problems almost right away. Links that were stable with 2.4.2 became unreliable. We rolled the software back and forth several times to see if there was just some new interference but the results seem conclusive. Links that are fine with 2.4.2 are not fine with 2.4.3. We tried loading 2.4.3 on only the AP's and not on the SM's and still had issues. We also tried 2.4.3 on the SM's and not the AP's but still no stability. I realize we're special here but REALLY. Is it possible that I'm the only one with issues... Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3
Damn, I was hoping I was not the only one. Steve b. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 10:34 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Cambium ePMP1000 Software Ver 2.4.3 I just wanted to see how others were doing with the latest Software release (2.4.3) for the ePMP platform. The first tower (2.4Ghz) we installed it on developed problems almost right away. Links that were stable with 2.4.2 became unreliable. We rolled the software back and forth several times to see if there was just some new interference but the results seem conclusive. Links that are fine with 2.4.2 are not fine with 2.4.3. We tried loading 2.4.3 on only the AP's and not on the SM's and still had issues. We also tried 2.4.3 on the SM's and not the AP's but still no stability. I realize we're special here but REALLY. Is it possible that I'm the only one with issues... Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] Trouble upgrading from 13.4 B7 to 13.4 Release
If you are using Dude on the same machine or any other program using port 80
kill that program before starting CNUT since it needs port 80. Verify CNUT
is using the correct IP address by going into update/http server configure.
I know you said 13.4 firmware which rules out ePMP1000 but that platform
will not work if CNUT is behind NAT.
Hope something above helps you.
Steve B.
_
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Utick
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 8:36 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Trouble upgrading from 13.4 B7 to 13.4 Release
I don't know, does the same thing on the A/P and any of the SM's attached to
it. They all behave the exact same way.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bill Prince part15...@gmail.com wrote:
We just did a bunch going from 13.4B10 - 13.4 release. No problems. You may
have a broken radio.
bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com
On 7/7/2015 4:23 PM, Steve Utick wrote:
Won't let me downgrade to 13.1.3 either, just sits there transferring the
file forever. Seems that once you put the Beta software on something,
it's there for life :-|
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 2:23 PM, George Skorup geo...@cbcast.com wrote:
Reboot it? If that doesn't help, maybe try downgrading it to 13.1.3 then
upgrade to 13.4?
On 7/7/2015 3:15 PM, Steve Utick wrote:
I've got a PMP100 A/P that's on 13.4 Beta 7 that I'm trying to upgrade to
13.4 Release. However, it seems to just hang on Transferring
c40_fskboot.image to host. Posted on the Cambium Forums, but haven't gotten
any answers there. Any ideas?
Thanks.
Re: [AFMUG] SyncInjector Early Early Beta self-resetting firmware.
Forrest, I have a perfect test environment for this. My central tower has been impacted almost every day due to the lightning activity here. I have spare injectors to fall back on if needed. Please count me in !!! Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 3:19 AM To: af Subject: [AFMUG] SyncInjector Early Early Beta self-resetting firmware. It looks like I'm pretty much ready to release this code - provided that the upgrade-into-real-devices tests goes well tomorrow.However, I'm not particularly eager to throw this up on the website for anyone to grab based on the fact that I'm going to be not in the office for the entirety of next week. If someone wants this code to test, I'm happy to send them a care package this Tuesday or Wednesday (providing I don't hit an unexpected snag with the packaging and upgrade tests tomorrow), provided they understand that if something goes wrong I'm probably not going to be able to throw together an emergency fix until at least the 20th. -- Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 mailto:forre...@imach.com forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com/ http://www.packetflux.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian http://facebook.com/packetflux http://twitter.com/@packetflux http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_compose http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_activeuid=e96 5778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_activeuid=e96 5778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce
Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber?
Remember, this is government. Government is the only thing that can fail miserably and still exist. For them payday still happens on Friday even after such a failure. Retirement with a pension is a given.. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Gray Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 3:10 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? About $40M is grant funding from the state for last mile services that is only available to municipalities. The balance of the funding is coming from town borrowing. My town will receive about $1.2M from the grant and will vote in September whether to authorize $2.3M of borrowing that would be paid with property tax. I'm 95% sure this will go through, and the network would be lit in about 3 years, but I can't get their numbers to work out. I cannot see how they can actually provide service and maintain their network and offer a base service of only $50 / month. If that jumps to $100, I could see remaining competitive, though. On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Chuck McCown ch...@wbmfg.com wrote: Where is the funding coming from? I would not be comfortable building in an area where I am sure to get over built. From: Christopher Gray mailto:cg...@graytechsoftware.com Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 11:56 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Plan to Compete with Municipal Fiber? Several of the rural towns in my planned coverage area are looking into municipal fiber (average density about 10 premises per fiber mile, all above ground). They're claiming $50 for 25 Mbps service, $79 for 100 Mbps, and $109 for 1 Gbps. They already have funding authorized in about half of the towns they are targeting... but they'd be about 3 years from providing any service. Is it reasonable or possible to compete with such a thing? Should I ignore any area that plans to fund this, or might it be worth getting a foothold before their system is lit? Thanks - Chris
Re: [AFMUG] PacketFlux SyncInjectors Auto Reset of power overloadcondition
Is the gotchas worse than having APs down requiring manual intervention? Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 4:15 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] PacketFlux SyncInjectors Auto Reset of power overloadcondition I'm out of the office for a couple of weeks. That firmware is ready to go, but there are some gotchas. I'm back mid next week. If you are willing to take it with the gotchas, I can get you one probably just before or just after the fourth of July holiday. This applies to anyone who wants it. The gotchas are basically that you can't configure or monitor some key parameters yet. On Jun 22, 2015 1:19 PM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Forrest seems to be out fishing. I get no response via email/ticket system. Does anyone know if PacketFlux ever released new firmware for their SyncInjectors to continue to cycle power to ports where overload condition occurred? Steve B.
[AFMUG] PacketFlux SyncInjectors Auto Reset of power overload condition
Forrest seems to be out fishing. I get no response via email/ticket system. Does anyone know if PacketFlux ever released new firmware for their SyncInjectors to continue to cycle power to ports where overload condition occurred? Steve B.
[AFMUG] PacketFlux SyncInjector Power tripped retry (Overload)
Does anyone know if PacketFlux ever released new firmware for their SyncInjectors to continue to cycle power to ports where overload condition occurred? Steve B.
[AFMUG] GPS tracking for company trucks
GPS tracking for company trucks. Anyone care to share their experiences on this subject? - Vendors - Effectiveness - Etc ... Thanks, Steve
[AFMUG] Source for Sonicwall NSA 2400
If anyone has or knows of a source for a used Sonicwall NSA 2400 at a decent price please contact me off list. Thanks, Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..
Introduce usage based billing and voilà, double the modulation of your wireless network without having to buy new equipment. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 12:58 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. interesting. I wonder if this could impact video quality and buffering in an odd way, could explain a customer issue we have had On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Did you update the signatures? That sounds awfully generic. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Apr 26, 2015 11:47 PM, Kurt Fankhauser li...@wavelinc.com wrote: You have got to be kidding me? CDN traffic being discarded 50%? What exactly would this be? The Procera box picked this traffic up as HTTP Download so it wasn't streaming. Only other thing I can think of is this customer has an XBOX maybe it was downloading an update? with 50% packet loss no wonder they called and complained, said they couldn't do anything reless network Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com/ http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappytelecom.net wrote: Sorry, I missed that .. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 tel:%28305%29663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net _ From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 9:50:17 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. I know. I was being sarcastic. It doesn't seem fair that they do TCP congestion control in a way that doubles the traffic and we end up discarding 50% anyway, but it still fills up our pipes. Just sayin'. On 4/26/2015 8:37 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: I see that the net neutrality is going to be the next boogieman under the bed for WISP's from now on... Please, please, please, correct your understanding on Net-Neutrality... It allows for one to traffic shape any and all kinds of traffic, as long as :- a) You declare your practice on your website. b) You DONT DO IT specific to A SPECIFIC Network.. i.e. all VOIP, or all Video, or ALL Streaming.. (applying a throttle on video to netflix while allowing Hulu would be considered a violation, but applying throttle to all types of video content is NOT !) :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 tel:305%20663%205518%20x%20232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 tel:%28305%29663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net _ From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) mailto:geo...@cbcast.com geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:12:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. So you'd be purposely slowing down or blocking legitimate traffic from an edge provider to the customer? Oh no, net neutrality violation! So when everyone starts with the 4k streaming and we're selling the customer 20Mbps, then we have to take on 40Mbps because of this!? On 4/26/2015 5:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I could justify declaring such traffic an attack and blocking the source as malicious. From: George mailto:geo...@cbcast.com Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 4:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. Yep, I see this all the time and Ken is exactly right. The Canopy QoS works exactly as designed, the AP is definitely not delivering more than the sustained rate, but is instead discarding the extra 50%. I've tested this situation thoroughly. Stick a MT simple queue in at the upstream router and the 2X rate traffic stops hitting the AP's ethernet interface, but it's still coming in at double the sustained rate farther upstream. There's no way around it except throwing bandwidth at it. This is CDN traffic. And when the customer thinks they can install one of those internet download managers to speed up their connection. The only thing it does is screw with TCP acks or window sizes or something which just puts more traffic on your transit just to be discarded at the congestion point (SM, queue, Procera, whatever). Gotta love it. You'd think with 70% of the internets being streaming video they'd think hmm.. maybe we can cut down on the peering congestion by NOT doing this crap. But no. On 4/26/2015 11:01 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: Sorry to answer a question with a question, but are you measuring at the SM, or at some upstream router? The reason I ask, is I have seen some CDN traffic that does
Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working..
Ken, Your assessment of the problem is exactly correct. I was going to compare it tor DoS as you did here. I don't see an easy fix for this. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 10:00 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. I don't think you're understanding the situation that we are speculating is happening. He is using Cambium QoS. However, he is seeing twice that amount of traffic destined to the customer, the SM is throwing half of it away (as it should), and as a result the customer's service sucks. The problem is that the sender is not observing traditional congestion control, it is not backing off the sending rate when it sees high packet loss. That's why I say it is similar to a DoS attack, someone sending far more traffic than the subscriber can receive. From: David Milholen mailto:dmilho...@wletc.com Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. This is why we like setting the QOS at the subscriber. If I remember the cambium burst allocation ignores tcp and udp and work strictly on a token bit system. We do not receive these complaints. The only time I hear them is if we get overloaded at the backhaul link. On 4/26/2015 8:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I think George forgot the sarcasm emoticon. Also note that the problem here is the edge provider is sending more than the customer's plan rate, ignoring TCP congestion control. Not only does this consume Internet bandwidth over and above what the customer has subscribed to, it makes anything else the customer is trying to do on the Internet unusable because normal TCP is unusable with 50% packet loss. It is not surprising the customer calls saying his Internet is slow. There's a saying that comes to mind, involving a 5 pound bag. From: Faisal Imtiaz mailto:fai...@snappytelecom.net Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 8:37 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. I see that the net neutrality is going to be the next boogieman under the bed for WISP's from now on... Please, please, please, correct your understanding on Net-Neutrality... It allows for one to traffic shape any and all kinds of traffic, as long as :- a) You declare your practice on your website. b) You DONT DO IT specific to A SPECIFIC Network.. i.e. all VOIP, or all Video, or ALL Streaming.. (applying a throttle on video to netflix while allowing Hulu would be considered a violation, but applying throttle to all types of video content is NOT !) :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net _ From: George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) mailto:geo...@cbcast.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 7:12:13 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. So you'd be purposely slowing down or blocking legitimate traffic from an edge provider to the customer? Oh no, net neutrality violation! So when everyone starts with the 4k streaming and we're selling the customer 20Mbps, then we have to take on 40Mbps because of this!? On 4/26/2015 5:58 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: I could justify declaring such traffic an attack and blocking the source as malicious. From: George Skorup mailto:geo...@cbcast.com (Cyber Broadcasting) Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 4:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 450SM sustain bucket throttle not working.. Yep, I see this all the time and Ken is exactly right. The Canopy QoS works exactly as designed, the AP is definitely not delivering more than the sustained rate, but is instead discarding the extra 50%. I've tested this situation thoroughly. Stick a MT simple queue in at the upstream router and the 2X rate traffic stops hitting the AP's ethernet interface, but it's still coming in at double the sustained rate farther upstream. There's no way around it except throwing bandwidth at it. This is CDN traffic. And when the customer thinks they can install one of those internet download managers to speed up their connection. The only thing it does is screw with TCP acks or window sizes or something which just puts more traffic on your transit just to be discarded at the congestion point (SM, queue, Procera, whatever). Gotta love it. You'd think with 70% of the internets being streaming video they'd think hmm.. maybe we can cut down on the peering congestion by NOT doing this crap. But no. On 4/26/2015 11:01 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: Sorry to answer a question with a question, but are you measuring at the SM, or at some upstream router? The reason I ask, is I have seen some CDN traffic that does not seem to follow traditional TCP congestion control.
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Red Triangle !
Sounds like a problem I reported as follows: * ePMP 1000 - Unable to change configuration on SM after upgrading from 2.2 to 2.3.1 - Once a device has been upgraded it continues to operate, however, no further configuration changes can be saved. - A truck roll to swap the unit or pin reset/re-config is required. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:42 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Red Triangle ! On that note there was a bug in 2.3.4 (may still be around, not sure) that would let you select a higher tx power than you could get away with. It would save and look all happy. However, if you look at the status tab it would be 0tx because you were trying excessive EIRP. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 1:12 PM, can...@believewireless.net p...@believewireless.net wrote: Take a look at the Notifications tab and it should tell you what the problem is. A lot of times it may be that you have the power set to high for the frequency or antenna. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Jerry Head li...@blountbroadband.com wrote: Usually when you get the red triangle there is a setting somewhere that the radio does not like. Take a look at the network page again and look for errors. On 4/21/2015 10:33 AM, SmarterBroadband wrote: Rebooted a couple of times. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 8:14 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Red Triangle ! Did you do a firmware upgrade and forget to reboot? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, SmarterBroadband li...@smarterbroadband.com wrote: On a ePMP running 2.4 software set as an AP (One customer CPE connected) both radios installed yesterday. On the AP we have a red triangle with an exclamation mark in it on the Network tab in configuration. The radio will not let us save changes now, save button grayed out. Radio is operational and passing traffic. Just want to set MIR profile in AP.. Any ideas what can cause this? Hoping not to have to go to site and reset to factory defaults. Thanks Adam
[AFMUG] ePMP NANT - Cambium Technical Support - csscorp.com
OUCH ... I can not get CNUT to update ePMP It just says it's uploading the package then fails. Tech Support recommends CNSS (Cambium Network Services Server). This program needs to use port 80 which conflicts with CNUT and Dude. I finally set-up a dedicated machine and even after installing CNS Server 1.2 Windows Setup, CNS Server 1.2 Hot Fix 1, and the CND files for ePMP 2.3 this program doesn't work. I'm a week into trying to get past this issue (Started when 2.4 firmware was released). I'm not doing well with CSSCORP people. It seems clear that in addition to being challenged by the English language they know little about the CNSS program or how to work effectively toward a solution. I finally had to tell them I'm done until they get someone involved that has a clue. If I'm forced to continue to do firmware updates using the GUI I think I'm to carve my eyes out. I can deal with slow on a 1-2 unit basis but updating an entire network that way is causing me to become unstable. Has anyone here made it work? Steve B.
[AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP
Has anyone been able to get CNUT working on the ePMP platform? I'm running CNUT 4.8 and can't get past Uploading Image to device then upload failed. There is no entry in the radio Log file on the failed attempt. Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk forour industry!!!!!!!!
ePMP100 management interface available Via Public IP (at least PPPoE) and can't be disabled and any other issue of this nature. Was going to be fixed in next release. Still going strong in 2.4 _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:23 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk forour industry That is how the archives are done. The subject came up months ago about having people be able to see the list archives without subscribing. I don't want to speak for Chuck M., but am pretty sure that the answer was that it wasn't a big deal. I have never thought of the list as secret in any way, seeing anybody is allowed to subscribe to monitor it without scrutiny as to who they are. But, OK. I'll bite. Why would someone seeing this list be a security risk for our industry? :-) From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 9:12 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry Is arch...@mail-archive.com subscribed to the list? From: Gerard Dupont III mailto:ger...@shelbybb.com Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:44 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry https://www.mail-archive.com/af@afmug.com/ On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote: Steve, I just searched for threads going back two weeks and don't find any of it on google. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry I post a question here today about CNUT working with ePMP. 10 minutes later I did a Google search on the subject and my message was already indexed by Google (top of the list) for the world to see. This can't be good .. Steve
Re: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry !!!!!!!!
My search was about ePMP and CNUT working. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul McCall Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 8:36 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry Steve, I just searched for threads going back two weeks and don't find any of it on google. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 8:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry I post a question here today about CNUT working with ePMP. 10 minutes later I did a Google search on the subject and my message was already indexed by Google (top of the list) for the world to see. This can't be good .. Steve
Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP
Glad at least someone did it. I'm on with technical support now. I can do a view, refresh and it communicates with the device. Here's the associated CNUT log: 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO Updating Selected Network Elements process start .. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO ePMP-2.4.pkg3 loaded. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO Starting Update Process .. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO Queue NE:192.168.23.4 for updating 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Checking Network Element Status (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Current = 2.3.3, U-Boot 9350_PX 1.1.4.a (Mar 9 2014 - 22:27:28), 2.4 Ghz GPS Synchronized (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Using Package Q:\Motorola\cnut3 packages\epmp\v2.4\ePMP-2.4.pkg3 (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 WARN Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Sending Upgrade command with URL: http://192.168.131.111:80/141183694/ePMP-GPS_Synced-v2.4.tar.gz (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Upgrade command sent successfully. (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Monitoring the device for Update. (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Uploading image to device (SITE= CambiumNetworks) It hangs here and I have to cancel the process. Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP Yeah I've used it. Make sure your usernames and passwords are correct On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Has anyone been able to get CNUT working on the ePMP platform? I'm running CNUT 4.8 and can't get past Uploading Image to device then upload failed. There is no entry in the radio Log file on the failed attempt. Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP
Thanks for commenting here. Ill post the answer here once I get it running. I tried turning firewall off but no dice. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of George Skorup (Cyber Broadcasting) Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 7:51 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP I had the same problem and I gave up several weeks ago. Not enough time to mess with it, so I've been upgrading radios using their GUIs for now. It appears to me that ePMP uses CNUT's HTTP/S server to download the images, which is different than use AP as file server for Canopy auto-update. CNUT doesn't push the image to the device. So make sure the CNUT HTTP server is running. And you firewall isn't in the way. And/or NAT issues. And I could be totally wrong. On 3/10/2015 3:42 PM, Wireless Admin wrote: Glad at least someone did it.� I�m on with technical support now.� I can do a view, refresh and it communicates with the device.� Here�s the associated CNUT log: � 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� Updating Selected Network Elements process start .. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� ePMP-2.4.pkg3 loaded. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� Starting Update Process .. 03/10/15 16:30:37 INFO�� ���������� Queue NE:192.168.23.4 for updating 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Checking Network Element Status (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Current = 2.3.3, U-Boot 9350_PX 1.1.4.a (Mar� 9 2014 - 22:27:28), 2.4 Ghz GPS Synchronized (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Using Package Q:\Motorola\cnut3 packages\epmp\v2.4\ePMP-2.4.pkg3 (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 WARN�� ������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Sending Upgrade command with URL: http://192.168.131.111:80/141183694/ePMP-GPS_Synced-v2.4.tar.gz (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Upgrade command sent successfully. (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Monitoring the device for Update. (SITE= CambiumNetworks) 03/10/15 16:30:38 INFO�� ���������� Host: 192.168.23.4;ESN: 000456CA109C;Message: Uploading image to device (SITE= CambiumNetworks) � It hangs here and I have to cancel the process. � Steve B � _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sean Heskett Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:30 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CNUT to update ePMP � Yeah I've used it. � Make sure your usernames and passwords are correct On Tuesday, March 10, 2015, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Has anyone been able to get CNUT working on the ePMP platform?� I�m running CNUT 4.8 and can�t get past �Uploading Image to device� then upload failed.� There is no entry in the radio Log file on the failed attempt. � Steve B.
[AFMUG] This mail list is a security risk for our industry !!!!!!!!
I post a question here today about CNUT working with ePMP. 10 minutes later I did a Google search on the subject and my message was already indexed by Google (top of the list) for the world to see. This can't be good .. Steve
Re: [AFMUG] More LTE tradgedy of the commons on 5 GHz..
So we help the Cellular industry by offloading data to WiFi. We help the Cellular Industry by supporting Cellular repeaters that allow customers to use their cell phones in homes and businesses where tower coverage is spotty. Then we get our nuts kicked once they complete their build out and we are no longer needed. Nice ... Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:59 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] More LTE tradgedy of the commons on 5 GHz.. It is what it is. one of the risk of being in this industry and use unlicensed Gino A. Villarini President Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. www.aeronetpr.com @aeronetpr From: Mike Hammett af...@ics-il.net Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 9:21 AM To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] More LTE tradgedy of the commons on 5 GHz.. Agreed. They get very defensive when they have no right to be. - 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 _ From: Patrick Leary patrickleary.af...@gmail.com To: af@afmug.com Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 6:31:28 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] More LTE tradgedy of the commons on 5 GHz.. That's called malicious interference and can and should get you fined and shut down. Further, it is not WISP spectrum and never was. I have never understood the WISP sense of entitlement with unlicensed (free) spectrum, especially given that it is a population that is largely politically conservative. On Mar 2, 2015 12:16 PM, Tim Reichhart t...@nwohiobb.com wrote: That means can we point our 5ghz backhaul stuff at there towers and make there signal about worthless? If so that would teach cell phone companies not to mess with WISP's spectrum. From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:03 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] More LTE tradgedy of the commons on 5 GHz.. If systems like this end up rolling out on cell sites across the nation we are going to see some tough times getting clear channels. I've seen several proposals now for tower based systems that use very large swaths of 5Ghz as alternative LTE data paths to cell phones with multi-channel BW designed to suck up every free piece of 5Ghz spectrum found. http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/02/t-mobile-alcatel-wifi-and-4g-fight/ Peter Kranz Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd www.UnwiredLtd.com http://www.unwiredltd.com/ Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 tel:510-868-1614%20x100 Mobile: 510-207- pkr...@unwiredltd.com
[AFMUG] Packetflux SyncInjector Firmware - auto retry on port power overload
Anyone know if packetflux ever added a feature to their syncinjector firmware to auto retry on port power overload. This was discussed back in April of 2014. I have a ticket open with them on this issue but I have not heard anything on it. Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux SyncInjector Firmware - auto retry on port power overload
Outstanding . Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 5:06 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Packetflux SyncInjector Firmware - auto retry on port power overload The almost-released beta has this. I was expecting it to be out before Animal Farm, but now it looks like just after WISPAMERICA. We actually ended up having to respin both the base unit code and the expansion module code to permit this, as we needed to be able to display a lot more internal data. The base unit code took us a few months as we also had to upgrade the underlying TCP/IP stack. I'm currently in the process of re-validating the syncinjector for proper operation. -forrest On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Wireless Admin wirel...@htn.net wrote: Anyone know if packetflux ever added a feature to their syncinjector firmware to auto retry on port power overload. This was discussed back in April of 2014. I have a ticket open with them on this issue but I have not heard anything on it. Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] Dishes for target practice
This reminds me of a service call we had several years ago. The equipment was at an un-attended location and supported a camera system for surveillance. We drive out to the location and the PMP100 radio had a bullet hole thru it. Looked like a .22 Cal but what ever it was the radio done.. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Larry Smith Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 1:53 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Dishes for target practice Hmmm, tracing the holes, the fourth (down near the bracket) definitely when through whatever was on the other side as you can see the edge through the third bullet hole. Just depends upon where it went through. I would suspect they were aiming at the white box. -- Larry Smith lesm...@ecsis.net On Mon February 2 2015 12:24, Ty Featherling wrote: Yeah it puts holes in your coverage. Just kidding. No it probably doesn't have any effect. -Ty On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Kurt Fankhauser li...@wavelinc.com wrote: Lol, I wonder if the signal is affected. Sent from my iPhone Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110 On Feb 2, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Jay Weekley par...@cyberbroadband.net wrote: While working on one of our locations our climber discovered some interesting damage to what I think is another companies equipment. bullet dish.JPG
Re: [AFMUG] EPMP insanity!
Glad to see someone else go on a rant about this. I spent half the day Saturday getting relatively nowhere with a couple of these units. Let's face it, there is a lot that's right about them but the frustrations: * Admin Interface Slw. * Two people can not be in the radio at one time. New knocks existing out without warning. * Editing fields with existing content results in unpredictable (unexplainable) results. * Upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3.x results in locked config that can not be resolved without pin reset. * Management interface accessible from Internet despite second IP configured for management. (Cambium committed to fix for next release) * The radios seem to run nice but OUCH. Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Fankhauser via Af Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 1:39 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP insanity! I can't take it anymore, I'm going back to UBNT for non-FSK/450 stuff. I can no longer deal with the slow and horrible EPMP interface. I thought it would get better as the firmware matured but its not getting any better, Just loaded the latest firmware 2.3.3 and its still slower than a turtle going in the wrong direction. For crying out loud the old Tranzeo interface is faster than this! Chrome, and IE 11 it doesn't matter it literally takes me 30 minutes to config one of these radios. By the time you upgrade the firmware and try to upload a template to one. (never does want to take a backup config is always erroring out) I can't afford to be sitting at the bench all day fiddling with these radios. You can't even type text in the fields that already have characters in them without getting some weird outcome. Everytime i go to deal with one of these radios i always end up with obscenities coming out of my mouth and I even have a hole punched in a wall in the shop cause i got so frustrated with one a few weeks back. Maybe Bitlomat will come out with third party firmware for these and save us all Kurt Fankhauser Wavelinc Communications P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 http://www.wavelinc.com/ http://www.wavelinc.com tel. 419-562-6405 fax. 419-617-0110
[AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet
Has anyone figured out how to lock down an ePMP radio so it can not be accessed from the Internet? In bridged mode this is not a problem since the Radio can be configured for a private IP. As soon as NAT is enabled and a public IP is used on the radio the management interface is exposed. We got Cambium to implement a secondary IP for management but the radio still responds on the Public side of the NAT. Could this just be an oversight on their part? Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet
They did but the radio still responds on the NAT public IP. In our case that's a PPPoE connection. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:48 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet Two WAN like Canopy. I believe it was added in 2.3.3. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 26, 2014 11:46 AM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Has anyone figured out how to lock down an ePMP radio so it can not be accessed from the Internet? In bridged mode this is not a problem since the Radio can be configured for a private IP. As soon as NAT is enabled and a public IP is used on the radio the management interface is exposed. We got Cambium to implement a secondary IP for management but the radio still responds on the Public side of the NAT. Could this just be an oversight on their part? Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet
I don't know that the radio is capable of distinguishing the difference between a forward packet and Input like Mikrotik. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:56 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet Firewall it? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 26, 2014 11:54 AM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: They did but the radio still responds on the NAT public IP. In our case that's a PPPoE connection. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:48 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet Two WAN like Canopy. I believe it was added in 2.3.3. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 26, 2014 11:46 AM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Has anyone figured out how to lock down an ePMP radio so it can not be accessed from the Internet? In bridged mode this is not a problem since the Radio can be configured for a private IP. As soon as NAT is enabled and a public IP is used on the radio the management interface is exposed. We got Cambium to implement a secondary IP for management but the radio still responds on the Public side of the NAT. Could this just be an oversight on their part? Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report
Is there a low end unit that can do this? Any Idea what price range? Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 12:37 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report A Fortigate will do that. you can even cobble it down to showing what user is logged in and what theyre doing On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: You could put in one of the Mikrotik routers that have the LCD and lock it to displaying the WAN side bandwidth graph. It won't tell them what is using all the bandwidth, but they can certainly go around shutting stuff off to see what is causing the usage. Like oh, it went down when I shut off the satellite TV receiver, I didn't know that used the Internet. Or look, it goes up whenever my daughter uses Facetime, that uses the Internet? Or we all clicked to upgrade our iOS versions and the graph has been pegged for the last day, meanwhile my Xbox games are lagging. From: Josh Luthman mailto:af@afmug.com via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:29 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report Powercode does bits down to the minute. If you want more detailed you'll probably need ntop or Procera. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 26, 2014 12:01 PM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Can anyone suggest a system that would allow an ISP to provide a customer a detailed report on Internet usage. I'm talking about the ability to show a customer, on usage based billing, what caused the consumption. My thought would be to route the customers IP through a specialized process for a limited period of time so details could be collected. A sort of debug mode. Steve B -- 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] Customer - Detailed Usage Report
This isn't exactly what I had in mind but using a router with display would really help the customer understand the current state of their connection. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 12:35 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report You could put in one of the Mikrotik routers that have the LCD and lock it to displaying the WAN side bandwidth graph. It won't tell them what is using all the bandwidth, but they can certainly go around shutting stuff off to see what is causing the usage. Like oh, it went down when I shut off the satellite TV receiver, I didn't know that used the Internet. Or look, it goes up whenever my daughter uses Facetime, that uses the Internet? Or we all clicked to upgrade our iOS versions and the graph has been pegged for the last day, meanwhile my Xbox games are lagging. From: Josh Luthman via Af mailto:af@afmug.com Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:29 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report Powercode does bits down to the minute. If you want more detailed you'll probably need ntop or Procera. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 26, 2014 12:01 PM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Can anyone suggest a system that would allow an ISP to provide a customer a detailed report on Internet usage. I'm talking about the ability to show a customer, on usage based billing, what caused the consumption. My thought would be to route the customers IP through a specialized process for a limited period of time so details could be collected. A sort of debug mode. Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report
Does FortiOS provide detailed report on Internet usage? Sorry for the question but I don't have any experience with this system. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 2:04 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report we are looking at putting 60d and 90d in as our site/POP routers. It will give us more visibility on the network. It does require a service contract for advanced features and reporting. There are a couple syslog servers I guess that can format the reports on these On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 1:00 PM, That One Guy thatoneguyst...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.avfirewalls.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQiAq_SkBRC3jLvJ1IPt2eIBEiQASUZy1z9Jet UR94rPQ3lbbwki727bo9hzSXDX33upLwc2LkEaAiBm8P8HAQ On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Is there a low end unit that can do this? Any Idea what price range? Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 12:37 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report A Fortigate will do that. you can even cobble it down to showing what user is logged in and what theyre doing On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote: You could put in one of the Mikrotik routers that have the LCD and lock it to displaying the WAN side bandwidth graph. It won't tell them what is using all the bandwidth, but they can certainly go around shutting stuff off to see what is causing the usage. Like oh, it went down when I shut off the satellite TV receiver, I didn't know that used the Internet. Or look, it goes up whenever my daughter uses Facetime, that uses the Internet? Or we all clicked to upgrade our iOS versions and the graph has been pegged for the last day, meanwhile my Xbox games are lagging. From: Josh mailto:af@afmug.com Luthman via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 11:29 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Customer - Detailed Usage Report Powercode does bits down to the minute. If you want more detailed you'll probably need ntop or Procera. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 26, 2014 12:01 PM, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Can anyone suggest a system that would allow an ISP to provide a customer a detailed report on Internet usage. I'm talking about the ability to show a customer, on usage based billing, what caused the consumption. My thought would be to route the customers IP through a specialized process for a limited period of time so details could be collected. A sort of debug mode. Steve B -- 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 -- 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 -- 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] ePMP management access from Internet
Awesome Thanks, Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dan Sullivan via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 6:27 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet Hi Steve B, This is being added for 2.3.4 and will be released shortly. When the separate wireless management IP address is enabled in NAT mode, the wireless management IP address will not be accessible from the wireless interface. Dan ePMP Software Manager From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin via Af Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 10:47 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP management access from Internet Has anyone figured out how to lock down an ePMP radio so it can not be accessed from the Internet? In bridged mode this is not a problem since the Radio can be configured for a private IP. As soon as NAT is enabled and a public IP is used on the radio the management interface is exposed. We got Cambium to implement a secondary IP for management but the radio still responds on the Public side of the NAT. Could this just be an oversight on their part? Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] Well there goes all our bandwidth. Amazonstreaming4Know.
I don't think this industry will ever get any respect. If most ISP's act
like data usage doesn't matter, how do you expect the customer to conclude
that it does. Watching TV never had usage based consequences so why would
the public expect it would now just because the TV is attached to the
internet. My brother in law and his family came over for Thanksgiving He
wanted the password for the wifi. It wasn't long before he was streaming
from Netflix. His daughter commented when he started the movie Make sure
you pick HD Dad. It wasn't 10 min into the movie before another activity
got everyone's attention the TV was let to play as background noise for the
family gathering. Look how bandwidth usage has change in the last several
years alone. Unless our industry wakes up soon and starts charging for what
we are providing it's going to be a rough road.
Consequences are the only thing that will regulate the madness. Usage based
billing is the ONLY way.
Steve B
_
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof via Af
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:05 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Well there goes all our bandwidth.
Amazonstreaming4Know.
Exactly.
From: Ryan Ghering via Af mailto:af@afmug.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:00 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Well there goes all our bandwidth.
Amazonstreaming4Know.
Ohh we see that now as well. Customer with a 6 meg package calls in, Yea
the net is slow I'm not getting my bandwidth I go look at they have a
constant traffic stream of 5.8 meg day in and day out for months. I ask, do
you have young kids at home? yup, but all they are doing is watching
netflix cartoons, and my wife just watch's stuff on her ipad shouldn't use
that much bandwidth. What will it take to teach customers that its not 6
meg PER DEVICE.. lol
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote:
I'm not so worried about 4K as I am that this will be the year we get hit
with the transition from one Netflix stream to everybody in the house
streaming video at the same time and people don't understand why they used
to be able to stream video and now they can't. I'm already seeing it.
I love the people who swear they don't stream video at all, just Youtube and
Facetime and on-demand on the satellite TV and some video on the Xbox and
the new smart TV and a couple Rokus and some Facebook videos on the iPad,
but no streaming going on here.
From: That One Guy mailto:af@afmug.com via Af
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Well there goes all our bandwidth. Amazon
streaming4Know.
This is going to make for an ugly christmas season.
If we had customer service who was firm it wouldnt be an issue we dont
offer that speed currently
but instead, the customers on 900 will be the ones who get the tv, and the
subscription and call in, and CS will keep saying, well isnt there anything
we can do for this guy in the middle of the forrest with the 300 foot cable
run? and Ill have to go home and punch one of my children, probably the boy,
Im kind of afraid of the girl.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Ken Hohhof via Af af@afmug.com wrote:
A quick Google search comes up with Audials and Playlater. It does not
appear to be rocket science.
From: Jason McKemie mailto:af@afmug.com via Af
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:18 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Well there goes all our bandwidth. Amazon streaming
4Know.
I'd think if someone could figure out a way to get the movies from RAM, they
could also figure out a way to capture them from a stream.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Travis Johnson via Af af@afmug.com wrote:
Because then people could save the movies in RAM, and someone would figure
out a way to be able to download them and put them on the Internet for free.
It's a licensing issue... that's why streaming is OK.
Travis
On 12/9/2014 7:00 PM, Bill Prince via Af wrote:
That 187MB translates to only about 11.25 GB per hour. Why not stick in a
32GB memory and be done? That would be almost 3 hours of buffer.
--
bp
part {dash} 15 {at} SkylineBroadbandService {dot} com
On 12/9/2014 4:50 PM, Travis Johnson via Af wrote:
It's really too bad that the devices that support all these streaming
services can't have a larger buffer. I'm sure it's part of their licensing
deals, but if they could buffer 60 seconds of stream (at any quality), they
would have much fewer support calls for streaming issues, etc.
Using Netflix's 25Mbps for 4k, that works out to 187.5MB of storage space.
At current RAM prices, you can buy a 256MB module for $15 full retail... so
places like Samsung can probably buy them in quantity for less than $2.
Seems like it would be worth it to pay an extra $10 for a TV/DVD/PS4/Wii-U
device that could handle 60 seconds of video.
Travis
On 12/9/2014 5:34 PM, Sterling Jacobson
[AFMUG] 4K Video Streaming Impact on ISP's
Most everyone here has been in this business long enough to see the pattern of bandwidth consumption. It seems obvious to me that consumers as well as product developers can easily consume as much internet as you can provide. Why not? As long as developers can make money and consumers are having fun this cycle will continue forever. Introduce a cost factor and the process will regulate it's self. Imagine a municipal water system with no usage fee. Developers would create, among other things, hydroelectric generators for your faucet. Attach these devices, turn the water on full blast, and power you're appliances at the water utilities expense. Water consumption would go thru the roof and you could fire the power company. How is that different than having your ISP deliver Video content so you can fire your Cable or Satellite Company. Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Dan, Unless I misunderstood the original post. The question was the need for a filter that only allows PPPoE to hit the WAN. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Dan Sullivan via Af Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:53 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter Daniel, I am Dan Sullivan and I am the software manager for ePMP at Cambium. Why do you want to filter PPPoE? Can you explain the use case more for me. When our SM is set up as a PPPoE client and is talking to a PPPoE server, it will only accept traffic from the PPPoE server over the wireless interface. With this in mind, why do you need a PPPoE filter for the wireless interface? One other item, when NAT mode is enabled we can set up a L2 filter for a source MAC and EtherType as indicated below, but only the source MAC filter will work. There is a warning message that indicates this when in NAT mode. Dan From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach via Af Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:04 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter +1 2014-11-17 17:45 GMT+01:00 Josh Luthman via Af af@afmug.com: Or how about an easy button to auto fill things like block bootp, all but pppoe, block SMB, etc. I like having a powerful customizable l2 and l3 firewall. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Nov 17, 2014 11:38 AM, Daniel Gerlach via Af af@afmug.com wrote: thx Steve @ Cambium why you not make it simple like in Canopy? 2014-11-17 17:22 GMT+01:00 Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com: Daniel, I posted here asking the same question but didn't get a response. Here's what we came up with: Substitute your radio WAN MAC. The second line needs the Wan MAC in Destination field. My screen is not wide enough to include it in this screenshot. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach via Af Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:35 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter Has somebody got it working that only PPPOE is going over the epmp 1000? thx
Re: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter
Daniel, I posted here asking the same question but didn't get a response. Here's what we came up with: Substitute your radio WAN MAC. The second line needs the Wan MAC in Destination field. My screen is not wide enough to include it in this screenshot. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Gerlach via Af Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 3:35 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] epmp 1000 only PPPOE Filter Has somebody got it working that only PPPOE is going over the epmp 1000? thx
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now
It is indeed like Christmas. Thanks Cambium Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ray Savich via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:38 PM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now Check out http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-Beta/New-ePMP-Beta-Release-2-3- 1-now-available/m-p/36200 for details. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now
With regards to separate management IP: 1) I enable the feature 2) Select static 3) enter IP and mask 4) No Gateway field ? 5) save configuration (I suppose not so since save is still available) 6) Reboot. 7) Poof settings gone. 8) If error=1 goto step 1 9) Happyness counter=0 Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ray Savich via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:38 PM To: 'af@afmug.com' Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now Check out http://community.cambiumnetworks.com/t5/ePMP-Beta/New-ePMP-Beta-Release-2-3- 1-now-available/m-p/36200 for details. Ray
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now
We use PPPoE as well. Anyone else get a static management IP working in conjunction with PPPoE for Customer using this software update? Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:40 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now Worked fine for me. questioning the gateway aspect as well. either it assumes a gateway based on IP and mask OR its using the public Gateway to get home This don't sound good. We use PPPoE. If there is no gateway and the PPPoE is out of session there is no way home?
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now
After upgrading from 2.2 to 2.3.1 I can't save any config changes. That's the real problem here. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 6:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now We use PPPoE as well. Anyone else get a static management IP working in conjunction with PPPoE for Customer using this software update? Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:40 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP Beta Release 2.3.1 Available Now Worked fine for me. questioning the gateway aspect as well. either it assumes a gateway based on IP and mask OR its using the public Gateway to get home This don't sound good. We use PPPoE. If there is no gateway and the PPPoE is out of session there is no way home?
Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations
DS-2CD2532F-IS (Dome) DS-2CD2632F-IS (Bullet) I find their Model numbers annoying. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:36 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations Any particular model(s) that have worked well for you? On Friday, November 7, 2014, Wireless Admin via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Software comes with Camera. We use storage on camera. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com'); ] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 10:02 AM To: af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 af@afmug.com Reply-To: af@afmug.com af@afmug.com Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM To: af@afmug.com 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 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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af-boun...@afmug.com'); ] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:25 PM To: af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); To: af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 was not fond of AirVision, it sucked. I know this has been hashed and re-hashed, but I'm
Re: [AFMUG] Finding 3650 interference
It was inevitable that it would come to this when some decide following the law is optional. Best thing to do is notify the FCC of the violation. If they get involved it will likely be too late to help your immediate problem, however it would likely help in the long run. Giving up on the process doesn't help anyone. Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 9:19 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Finding 3650 interference I'm currently dealing with this exact scenario. Analyzing the FCC database was a waste of time for me. I simply called all other wireless operators in the area and confirmed their frequencies. That also lead to a dead end. I ended up swapping frequencies and calling it a day. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:03 AM, That One Guy via Af af@afmug.com wrote: you are assuming that the offender is even registered, and thats a pretty big leap of faith. Youre better off going out with a cheap ubnt in SA mode and drive sourcing it, but what good will it do, even if its an unregistered base station, you have no fcc recourse. On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Adam Moffett via Af af@afmug.com wrote: So registering everyone's locations sounds great in theory because in theory you could then determine who's interfering with you and get a hold of them. My 320 AP sees a -79 on the exact channel I've been using for a few years. Not sure exactly when it showed up. If it was a base station antenna pointed at my base station antenna, then it could be up to 40km away. So I do a geo search in ULS for NN licenses with a location within 40km. It shows me 5 license holders who each have many locations.it doesn't actually tell me which locations triggered the search hit. So I'm thinking I could spend hours putting every location in Google Earth to see where they land.and I could pre-filter locations where the lat/long looks way too far off. That's still going to take hours, and if they didn't register their location anyway then it might end up being a waste of time. Is there a way to see which locations matched the 40km search RADIUS rather than seeing only the license holder and having to look through a zillion locations for each one? If so, I'm not seeing itplease tell me I'm missing it. -- 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] IP Camera Recommendations
Hikvision Rocks Check Ebay, Steve B _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie via Af Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 1:14 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations 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
Re: [AFMUG] IP Camera Recommendations
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 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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); af@afmug.com To: af@afmug.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','af@afmug.com'); 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 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] ePMP feature
Thanks, Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sriram Chaturvedi via Af Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:45 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ePMP feature Steve, Yes, we are considering doing a point release to 2.3 to add this support. Thanks, Sriram From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Wireless Admin via Af Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 4:12 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP feature Anyone know when Cambium is going to add a management IP address for ePMP when configured to run NAT/PPPoE. The lack of management IP is really getting to be a PIA. Steve B.
[AFMUG] ePMP feature
Anyone know when Cambium is going to add a management IP address for ePMP when configured to run NAT/PPPoE. The lack of management IP is really getting to be a PIA. Steve B.
Re: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE
SonicWall Sucks when it comes to PPPoE PERIOD. Steve B. -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 7:28 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] Sonicwall and PPPoE Has anyone worked much with Sonicwall routers? We have a corporate client with a NSA 250MW using it as master to VPN between sites. If a SM gets rebooted, PPPoE server gets rebooted(in middle of night), etc the thing will never redial the PPPoE connection. Very frustrating. Has anyone solved this? I do not have direct access to the device but I can work with there tech.
[AFMUG] Win8 Onedrive
From what I'm seeing it Looks like Windows 8 has a feature called onedrive that automatically copies your My Documents to the cloud. This feature is active by default. Wow, There go's the family pictures ... Steve B
Re: [AFMUG] ePMP w/GPS
It works but with PPPoE/NAT the only management access is via PPoE IP address. NO separate management IP. Steve -Original Message- From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt via Af Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 1:06 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] ePMP w/GPS For those deploying 2.4ghz ePMP with GPS enabled how is it working? What is the latency like? Is PPPoE and NAT available in the SM yet?
Re: [AFMUG] New ePMP Beta Software 2.3-RC10 available!
So much for separate management IP in this release. This leaves PPPoE users waiting for next release when? Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Sriram Chaturvedi via Af Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 7:09 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] New ePMP Beta Software 2.3-RC10 available! Folks, ePMP Beta software 2.3-RC10 is now available for download here: https://support.cambiumnetworks.com/files/epmp System Release 2.3 adds the following features: * 5 MHz and 10 MHz channel bandwidth support oMax number of subscribers is limited to 30 for 5MHz and 60 for 10 MHz * SM Wi-Fi mode support (Only 20 MHz and 40 MHz channel bandwidths) oSM can operate in standard Wi-Fi mode * Broadcast Traffic Shaping (Limiting) oAbility to limit the number of broadcast packets per second * Multicast VLAN and Prioritization oMulticast VLAN support with prioritization oAbility to leave/join multicast groups and limit number of multicast groups to up to 5 groups oSupport for IGMPv3 snooping * CLI access via ssh (default credentials: admin/admin) * Option to set SM Max Tx power manually Please post any feedback on the ePMP Beta Forum! http://epmpbeta.community.cambiumnetworks.com/ Thanks, Sriram
Re: [AFMUG] ObamaCare
PC, Thanks for the detailed response. I like it and it shows you're thinking. My simple way of explaining the healthcare problem is that you can take something that is royally F!@KED up, add government and expect it to be cheaper and better. Steve _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Paul Conlin via Af Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 8:13 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ObamaCare What did people expect? Insurance companies are the house. They always make money. By accepting pre-existing conditions everyone else's premiums go up. By definition. The only way health insurance can work is if it is universal (code for mandatory). Can't have people who can do math, like Chuck, opting out. Or healthy people saying no. Everyone in. Everyone pays. Spreads out the costs. ObamaCare was never about controlling costs. It was about increasing coverage. More coverage costs more. Why are people surprised at this? If you want to control costs you have to redesign the way money flows. Our system of providers and insurance companies is *designed* to maximize heath costs. It is a positive feedback loop. What is needed is a single payer system, like Canada, where one paying party can have maximum leverage to minimize costs and who has limited ability to raise taxes. It is a proper (negative) feedback system that has inheritably more control. Canada, for the record, is not privatized health care like the VHA. In fact it is the opposite. The Government of Canada purchases all its healthcare from private entities, like Medicare. A fact yet to be discovered by the media in the USA. It is hard to understand why the Republican's hate ObamaCare since it was mostly their idea. Well, other than ObamaCare was championed by Obama and I guess that is enough reason. The basic concept to use the free market and let industry to its thing is normally what Republican's want. Not to mention its inherent ability to make more money for insurance companies and private industry. Sure, they are upset that it is being used as a wealth distribution system that makes people with money pay more and people without pay less. Ok, so that is two reasons they hate it. The mistake made, was not implementing a single payer system simultaneously with universal coverage. The CBO calculated the saving from the former would pay for the later resulting in no increase in out-of-pocket costs. Then the other benefits of such a privatized system would start to kick in and the open market competition for services will drive costs down. With health care general health would improve and costs would go down even more. Unfortunately the Government is dysfunctional and has zero chance of overcoming the trillions of dollars companies are making off of the existing out of control health care system. And if they could pass the laws, would anyone trust our Government to run such a program? And there is the root problem. Obviously an over simplification but now back to my real job. PC Blaze Broadband From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Rory Conaway via Af Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:33 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ObamaCare People with pre-existing conditions are one of the few groups benefitting from this. Rory From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy via Af Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 7:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ObamaCare We pay about the same as we did but our deductible is lower, our out of pocket max is lower, and they covered our pregnancy. We switched during the first trimester because we didn't have maternity coverage (no self-insured plans in our state had it), and Obamacare made pregnancy not count as a pre-existing condition. It saved us about $7,000-$8,000 this year. The craziest part is that we actually stayed with the same provider, Select Health (IHC). It was just the difference between them providing maternity and not providing maternity. We have been very happy with our Obamacare. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Glen Waldrop via Af af@afmug.com wrote: Further the subsidies have been deemed unconstitutional, so they're forcing us to pay insurance with the promise of subsidies that they are now going to take away. Bait and switch. The whole thing has been a screwup from day one. It is actually cheaper for me to pay out of pocket than pay for this insurance, but the fines will get you either way. - Original Message - From: Rory Conaway mailto:af@afmug.com via Af To: af@afmug.com Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ObamaCare And so did the quality and options of your care. I know that 2 of my doctors retired early and the other one doesn't take Obamacare. Fortunately I don't have to use it. Here is my question though, doesn't the fact that the federal government wasted a couple
Re: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info
If you make a product that renders smart meters inoperative I will pay whatever you want! Steve B. _ From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Matt Mangriotis via Af Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 10:57 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: [AFMUG] 900 MHz Survey - Request for Info As some of you may already be aware, we are conducting some inquiries surrounding the 900 MHz band in order to properly address concerns in using this band, and help provide us the information needed to develop the product that you need to deliver service to your customers. The survey is just over 20 questions, and is located here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XNS38W6 Please help us help you! Any information we gather will help us to make sure we're developing the right product for your needs, and this info will not be used for any commercial or solicitation purposes. It's optional to fill in the contact info at the end, but I encourage you to do so, in case further exploration of a few of the responses could help even more. The survey will stay open for about 2 weeks, so try to get to it soon. Let me know if you have any questions or problems accessing the survey. Thanks, Matt Mangriotis Senior Product Manager Cambium Networks 3800 Golf Road, Suite 360 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 www.cambiumnetworks.com O: 847-439-6379 M: 630-308-9394 E: m...@cambiumnetworks.com CN_logo_horizontal_blueIcon_blackName
