subject:"\[AFMUG\] \*\&%$ 320"

disabled, no retries, what would help?

[image: Inline image 1]
[image: Inline image 2]

[image: Inline image 3]


[image: Inline image 4]
[image: Inline image 5]



[image: Inline image 6]

pictures were easier






On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Colin Stanners  wrote:

> Under Config->ServiceFlows->QoS Profiles, do the profiles whose numbers
> you're using (selected on the Default Parameters page) have HARQ enabled?
> How many retries?
>
> Under config->Air Interface -> C/N config, what's the C/N Table Base?
> default -70?
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320
>> network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
>> I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
>> limited access points
>>
>> good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.
>>
>> uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
>> utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput
>>
>> I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
>> like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
>> changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.
>>
>> APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
>> mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35
>>
>> I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
>> seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low
>>
>> Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on
>> the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like
>>
>> we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
>> thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
>> though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others
>>
>> any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>


-- 
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] *&%$ 320

What PTMP equipment are you using at those sites? I have seen odd things 
happen on APs during severe fading events.


On 10/6/2016 10:20 PM, Jesse DuPont wrote:
I'll chime in on this... We had four separate multipoint APs this 
morning, two on one tower and the other two each on their own separate 
towers, all drop all their RF sessions to SMs and had to be rebooted 
before the SMs would reconnect. I wonder if, had the equipment been 
higher quality, maybe the SMs would not have dropped, just degraded 
for a bit (perhaps)? Other than these are all in the same 20 mile 
radius, they have nothing in common other than the owner. Do you think 
it's the same symptoms/problem?


*_Jesse DuPont_*

Network Architect
email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
Celerity Networks LLC

Celerity Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc

Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband

On 10/6/16 9:02 PM, George Skorup wrote:
Thunderstorms this afternoon. Then it cleared and the sun was beating 
down for a while. Still 70F outside. Dew point 67F. 90% humidity. 
Wind dropped to zero around dusk, which is the major contributing 
factor. Feels like a summer night outside right now. The wind should 
pick up a little bit later and mix things up. Hopefully.


Our 30 mile 6GHz path is about 7dB low one direction and 18dB low in 
the other direction (Rx high side) right now. Sitting at 256QAM and 
64QAM. As I'm writing this, I'm sitting here watching the Rx high 
side RSL swing back up 10dB in less than a minute. Now both RSLs are 
even, but still 7dB below normal. And both sides back to full mod. 
Now it's starting to reverse. The Rx low end is going down hill while 
the Rx high is sitting fairly steady. And now they're even again. You 
can really see the frequency selective fading with the FDD split. 
Cool stuff. Sucks, but still cool to watch.


On 10/6/2016 9:17 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


George, is this due to some weird weather by you?

Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found 
out ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is 
the top of the hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to 
substations.  One tower by me they have 4 sectors and I think each 
AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It didn’t help that they totally messed up 
the lat/lon of their tower when they registered it in ULS. Once I 
looked at the CPE locations and drew lines following the stated 
azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to a ComEd facility.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy 
/sarcasm

*Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:


Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started
around dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing
some 11GHz links go from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60
in just a couple minutes, and BER alarms like crazy. This is teh
suck.

On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of
our 320 network, it has hit multiple sites at once.

I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal
installs on very limited access points

good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the
frame utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with
only 6-12 mbps throughput

I have been shifting frequencies across the network because
it presented like interference, and a change on one AP
results in required cascade changes across the 3ghz network
since 320 sync doesnt actually work.

APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz
channels mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts
range from 10 to 35

I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels
and am not seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low

Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put
every AP on the network in SA mode to get a visual on what
my spectrum looks like

we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of
another 320 AP thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the
320 on a near channel even though they were only in the back
lobe, but this is far from the others

any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be
appreciated

-- 


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.



--

If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your 
team as part of y

Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320


Hey, wait for me!

On 10/6/2016 10:39 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
my bad, 645 down equipment, about a third of that is monitored 
routers. but even this number still makes me want to go there


On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com 
<mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:


You have 600 customers on 320 WiMAX?  That would make a person
look forward to dying and going to the bad place.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy /sarcasm
*Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:54 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
    *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

good night to bring down 600 customers on purpose, ive never done
that before

i know the water company called me yesterday about their system on
917.5 mhz croaking out on them, dont know what killed 900mhz, i
ficgured it was com ed pushing out fram eureka or wherever. if
they start puttin up wimax, i shooting every comed guy i see in
the cock with a pellet gun

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Jaime Solorza
<losguyswirel...@gmail.com <mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

GE MDS is pushing 3.65 SCADA allot

On Oct 6, 2016 8:17 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com
<mailto:af...@kwisp.com>> wrote:

George, is this due to some weird weather by you?

Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65
interference, I found out ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for
smartgrid, I don’t know if this is the top of the
hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to
substations.  One tower by me they have 4 sectors and I
think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It didn’t help that
they totally messed up the lat/lon of their tower when
they registered it in ULS. Once I looked at the CPE
locations and drew lines following the stated azimuth, I
saw they converged on a tower next to a ComEd facility.

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
/sarcasm
*Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are
going 3ghz silent

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup
<geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:

Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a
somebitch. Started around dusk. Don't beat your head
into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go from
their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a
couple minutes, and BER alarms like crazy. This is teh
suck.

On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

There is some nutty madness going on on a large
portion of our 320 network, it has hit multiple
sites at once.

I know much of its self induced due to too many
marginal installs on very limited access points

good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get
into to manage.

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i
get into the frame utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2
and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput

I have been shifting frequencies across the
network because it presented like interference,
and a change on one AP results in required cascade
changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync
doesnt actually work.

APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles
changed, 7mhz channels mostly ABCD 90s and some
split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35

I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz
channels and am not seeing this issue, but
subscriber counts are low

Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to
just put every AP on the network in SA mode to get
a visual on what my spectrum looks like

we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles
south of another 320 AP thats facing south, it
blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
though they were only in the back lobe, but this
is far from the others

any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax

Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

my bad, 645 down equipment, about a third of that is monitored routers. but
even this number still makes me want to go there

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

> You have 600 customers on 320 WiMAX?  That would make a person look
> forward to dying and going to the bad place.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
> /sarcasm
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:54 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320
>
>
>
> good night to bring down 600 customers on purpose, ive never done that
> before
>
>
>
> i know the water company called me yesterday about their system on 917.5
> mhz croaking out on them, dont know what killed 900mhz, i ficgured it was
> com ed pushing out fram eureka or wherever. if they start puttin up wimax,
> i shooting every comed guy i see in the cock with a pellet gun
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> GE MDS is pushing 3.65 SCADA allot
>
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2016 8:17 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
>
> George, is this due to some weird weather by you?
>
>
>
> Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found out
> ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is the top of
> the hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to substations.  One tower
> by me they have 4 sectors and I think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It
> didn’t help that they totally messed up the lat/lon of their tower when
> they registered it in ULS.  Once I looked at the CPE locations and drew
> lines following the stated azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to
> a ComEd facility.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
> /sarcasm
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320
>
>
>
> lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>
> Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around
> dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go
> from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple minutes, and
> BER alarms like crazy. This is teh suck.
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320
> network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
>
> I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
> limited access points
>
>
>
> good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.
>
>
>
> uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
> utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput
>
>
>
> I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
> like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
> changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.
>
>
>
> APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
> mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35
>
>
>
> I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
> seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low
>
>
>
> Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on
> the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like
>
>
>
> we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
> thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
> though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others
>
>
>
> any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>



-- 
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] *&%$ 320

2016-10-06 Thread Ken Hohhof

You have 600 customers on 320 WiMAX?  That would make a person look forward to 
dying and going to the bad place.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

good night to bring down 600 customers on purpose, ive never done that before

i know the water company called me yesterday about their system on 917.5 mhz 
croaking out on them, dont know what killed 900mhz, i ficgured it was com ed 
pushing out fram eureka or wherever. if they start puttin up wimax, i shooting 
every comed guy i see in the cock with a pellet gun

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com 
<mailto:losguyswirel...@gmail.com> > wrote:

GE MDS is pushing 3.65 SCADA allot

On Oct 6, 2016 8:17 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com <mailto:af...@kwisp.com> 
> wrote:

George, is this due to some weird weather by you?

Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found out ComEd 
is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is the top of the 
hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to substations.  One tower by me 
they have 4 sectors and I think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It didn’t help 
that they totally messed up the lat/lon of their tower when they registered it 
in ULS.  Once I looked at the CPE locations and drew lines following the stated 
azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to a ComEd facility.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On Behalf 
Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> > wrote:

Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around dusk. 
Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go from their 
nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple minutes, and BER alarms like 
crazy. This is teh suck.

On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320 network, it 
has hit multiple sites at once. 

I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very 
limited access points

good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame utilization, 
tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput

I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented like 
interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade changes across 
the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.

APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels mostly 
ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35

I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not seeing 
this issue, but subscriber counts are low

Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on the 
network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like 

we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP thats 
facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even though they 
were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others

any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated

-- 

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.

-- 

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.

-- 

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] *&%$ 320

2016-10-06 Thread Jesse DuPont


  
  
I'll chime in on this... We had four separate multipoint APs this
morning, two on one tower and the other two each on their own
separate towers, all drop all their RF sessions to SMs and had to be
rebooted before the SMs would reconnect. I wonder if, had the
equipment been higher quality, maybe the SMs would not have dropped,
just degraded for a bit (perhaps)? Other than these are all in the
same 20 mile radius, they have nothing in common other than the
owner. Do you think it's the same symptoms/problem?


  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jesse DuPont

  Network
  Architect
  email: jesse.dup...@celeritycorp.net
  Celerity Networks LLC
  Celerity
  Broadband LLC
Like us! facebook.com/celeritynetworksllc
  Like us! facebook.com/celeritybroadband
  

  

On 10/6/16 9:02 PM, George Skorup
  wrote:


  
  Thunderstorms this afternoon. Then it cleared and the sun was
  beating down for a while. Still 70F outside. Dew point 67F. 90%
  humidity. Wind dropped to zero around dusk, which is the major
  contributing factor. Feels like a summer night outside right now.
  The wind should pick up a little bit later and mix things up.
  Hopefully.
  
  Our 30 mile 6GHz path is about 7dB low one direction and 18dB low
  in the other direction (Rx high side) right now. Sitting at 256QAM
  and 64QAM. As I'm writing this, I'm sitting here watching the Rx
  high side RSL swing back up 10dB in less than a minute. Now both
  RSLs are even, but still 7dB below normal. And both sides back to
  full mod. Now it's starting to reverse. The Rx low end is going
  down hill while the Rx high is sitting fairly steady. And now
  they're even again. You can really see the frequency selective
  fading with the FDD split. Cool stuff. Sucks, but still cool to
  watch.
  
  On 10/6/2016 9:17 PM, Ken Hohhof
wrote:
  
  




  George,
  is this due to some weird weather by you?
   
  Oh,
  and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I
  found out ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t
  know if this is the top of the hierarchy for their 900 MHz
  stuff, or SCADA to substations.  One tower by me they have
  4 sectors and I think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It
  didn’t help that they totally messed up the lat/lon of
  their tower when they registered it in ULS.  Once I looked
  at the CPE locations and drew lines following the stated
  azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to a ComEd
  facility.
   
   
  
  From: Af
  [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com]
  On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
  Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320
   
  
lol well it wont be coming from us for
  a while, we are going 3ghz silent
  
  
 

  On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM,
George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com>
wrote:
  

  Dude, I'm seeing multipath and
ducting like a somebitch. Started around dusk. Don't
beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz
links go from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to
-60 in just a couple minutes, and BER alarms like
crazy. This is teh suck.
  

   
  
On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That
  One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
  
  

  There is some nutty
madness going on on a large portion of our
320 network, it has hit multiple sites at
once. 
  
I know much of its self
  induced due to too many marginal installs
  on very limited access points
  
  
 
  
  
good CINR to SMs, even
  matrix B I cant even get into

Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

Thunderstorms this afternoon. Then it cleared and the sun was beating 
down for a while. Still 70F outside. Dew point 67F. 90% humidity. Wind 
dropped to zero around dusk, which is the major contributing factor. 
Feels like a summer night outside right now. The wind should pick up a 
little bit later and mix things up. Hopefully.


Our 30 mile 6GHz path is about 7dB low one direction and 18dB low in the 
other direction (Rx high side) right now. Sitting at 256QAM and 64QAM. 
As I'm writing this, I'm sitting here watching the Rx high side RSL 
swing back up 10dB in less than a minute. Now both RSLs are even, but 
still 7dB below normal. And both sides back to full mod. Now it's 
starting to reverse. The Rx low end is going down hill while the Rx high 
is sitting fairly steady. And now they're even again. You can really see 
the frequency selective fading with the FDD split. Cool stuff. Sucks, 
but still cool to watch.


On 10/6/2016 9:17 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:


George, is this due to some weird weather by you?

Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found 
out ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is 
the top of the hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to 
substations.  One tower by me they have 4 sectors and I think each AP 
only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It didn’t help that they totally messed up the 
lat/lon of their tower when they registered it in ULS.  Once I looked 
at the CPE locations and drew lines following the stated azimuth, I 
saw they converged on a tower next to a ComEd facility.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy 
/sarcasm

*Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:


Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started
around dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some
11GHz links go from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in
just a couple minutes, and BER alarms like crazy. This is teh suck.

On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our
320 network, it has hit multiple sites at once.

I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal
installs on very limited access points

good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the
frame utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only
6-12 mbps throughput

I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it
presented like interference, and a change on one AP results in
required cascade changes across the 3ghz network since 320
sync doesnt actually work.

APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz
channels mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range
from 10 to 35

I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and
am not seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low

Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put
every AP on the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my
spectrum looks like

we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of
another 320 AP thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the
320 on a near channel even though they were only in the back
lobe, but this is far from the others

any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be
appreciated

-- 


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.



--

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] *&%$ 320

good night to bring down 600 customers on purpose, ive never done that
before

i know the water company called me yesterday about their system on 917.5
mhz croaking out on them, dont know what killed 900mhz, i ficgured it was
com ed pushing out fram eureka or wherever. if they start puttin up wimax,
i shooting every comed guy i see in the cock with a pellet gun

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> GE MDS is pushing 3.65 SCADA allot
>
> On Oct 6, 2016 8:17 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:
>
>> George, is this due to some weird weather by you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found out
>> ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is the top of
>> the hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to substations.  One tower
>> by me they have 4 sectors and I think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It
>> didn’t help that they totally messed up the lat/lon of their tower when
>> they registered it in ULS.  Once I looked at the CPE locations and drew
>> lines following the stated azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to
>> a ComEd facility.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
>> /sarcasm
>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320
>>
>>
>>
>> lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around
>> dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go
>> from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple minutes, and
>> BER alarms like crazy. This is teh suck.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>>
>> There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320
>> network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
>>
>> I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
>> limited access points
>>
>>
>>
>> good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.
>>
>>
>>
>> uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
>> utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
>> like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
>> changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.
>>
>>
>>
>> APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
>> mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35
>>
>>
>>
>> I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
>> seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low
>>
>>
>>
>> Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on
>> the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like
>>
>>
>>
>> we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
>> thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
>> though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others
>>
>>
>>
>> any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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.
>>
>


-- 
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] *&%$ 320

2016-10-06 Thread Jaime Solorza

GE MDS is pushing 3.65 SCADA allot

On Oct 6, 2016 8:17 PM, "Ken Hohhof" <af...@kwisp.com> wrote:

> George, is this due to some weird weather by you?
>
>
>
> Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found out
> ComEd is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is the top of
> the hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to substations.  One tower
> by me they have 4 sectors and I think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It
> didn’t help that they totally messed up the lat/lon of their tower when
> they registered it in ULS.  Once I looked at the CPE locations and drew
> lines following the stated azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to
> a ComEd facility.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
> /sarcasm
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320
>
>
>
> lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>
> Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around
> dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go
> from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple minutes, and
> BER alarms like crazy. This is teh suck.
>
>
>
> On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320
> network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
>
> I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
> limited access points
>
>
>
> good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.
>
>
>
> uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
> utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput
>
>
>
> I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
> like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
> changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.
>
>
>
> APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
> mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35
>
>
>
> I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
> seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low
>
>
>
> Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on
> the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like
>
>
>
> we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
> thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
> though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others
>
>
>
> any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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] *&%$ 320

2016-10-06 Thread Ken Hohhof

George, is this due to some weird weather by you?

 

Oh, and one thing to consider if you have 3.65 interference, I found out ComEd 
is using 3.65 WiMAX for smartgrid, I don’t know if this is the top of the 
hierarchy for their 900 MHz stuff, or SCADA to substations.  One tower by me 
they have 4 sectors and I think each AP only feeds 1-2 CPEs.  It didn’t help 
that they totally messed up the lat/lon of their tower when they registered it 
in ULS.  Once I looked at the CPE locations and drew lines following the stated 
azimuth, I saw they converged on a tower next to a ComEd facility.

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 9:05 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] *&%$ 320

 

lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent

 

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com 
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com> > wrote:

Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around dusk. 
Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go from their 
nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple minutes, and BER alarms like 
crazy. This is teh suck.

 

On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320 network, it 
has hit multiple sites at once. 

I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very 
limited access points

 

good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.

 

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame utilization, 
tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput

 

I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented like 
interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade changes across 
the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.

 

APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels mostly 
ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35

 

I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not seeing 
this issue, but subscriber counts are low

 

Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on the 
network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like 

 

we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP thats 
facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even though they 
were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others

 

any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated

 

 

-- 

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.

 





 

-- 

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] *&%$ 320

2016-10-06 Thread Colin Stanners

Under Config->ServiceFlows->QoS Profiles, do the profiles whose numbers
you're using (selected on the Default Parameters page) have HARQ enabled?
How many retries?

Under config->Air Interface -> C/N config, what's the C/N Table Base?
default -70?

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320
> network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
> I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
> limited access points
>
> good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.
>
> uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
> utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput
>
> I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
> like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
> changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.
>
> APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
> mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35
>
> I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
> seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low
>
> Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on
> the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like
>
> we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
> thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
> though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others
>
> any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated
>
>
> --
> 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] *&%$ 320

lol well it wont be coming from us for a while, we are going 3ghz silent

On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:58 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around
> dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links go
> from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple minutes, and
> BER alarms like crazy. This is teh suck.
>
>
> On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320
> network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
> I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
> limited access points
>
> good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.
>
> uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
> utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput
>
> I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
> like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
> changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.
>
> APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
> mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35
>
> I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
> seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low
>
> Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on
> the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like
>
> we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
> thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
> though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others
>
> any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>


-- 
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] *&%$ 320

Dude, I'm seeing multipath and ducting like a somebitch. Started around 
dusk. Don't beat your head into your desk. I'm seeing some 11GHz links 
go from their nominal -45ish to like -35 to -60 in just a couple 
minutes, and BER alarms like crazy. This is teh suck.


On 10/6/2016 8:47 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320 
network, it has hit multiple sites at once.
I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on 
very limited access points


good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame 
utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps 
throughput


I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it 
presented like interference, and a change on one AP results in 
required cascade changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt 
actually work.


APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels 
mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35


I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not 
seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low


Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP 
on the network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like


we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 
AP thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel 
even though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the 
others


any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated


--
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.

[AFMUG] *&%$ 320

There is some nutty madness going on on a large portion of our 320 network,
it has hit multiple sites at once.
I know much of its self induced due to too many marginal installs on very
limited access points

good CINR to SMs, even matrix B I cant even get into to manage.

uplink MCS for the most part looks good until i get into the frame
utilization, tons of 16qam 1/2 and 100% usage with only 6-12 mbps throughput

I have been shifting frequencies across the network because it presented
like interference, and a change on one AP results in required cascade
changes across the 3ghz network since 320 sync doesnt actually work.

APs are basically default layer 2, no profiles changed, 7mhz channels
mostly ABCD 90s and some split APs. sub counts range from 10 to 35

I migrated a distant part of the network to 10mhz channels and am not
seeing this issue, but subscriber counts are low

Im at my wits end on this nonsense and am about to just put every AP on the
network in SA mode to get a visual on what my spectrum looks like

we did turn up a 450 facing southwest ten miles south of another 320 AP
thats facing south, it blinded the SMs to the 320 on a near channel even
though they were only in the back lobe, but this is far from the others

any advice from you other guys stuck with wimax would be appreciated


-- 
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] 320 with a public IP

2016-05-10 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

Ill just leave this guy on internal IP space

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:55 PM, jeff pastuck 
wrote:

> The 320 CPE's have a known open DNS resolver issue (responding to DNS
> queries from external hosts). I have seen some of the NAT enabled CPE's
> choke on the external DNS requests and we then see 95% packet loss to them.
> Most of our 320 CPE's operate in bridge mode.
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Joe Novak  wrote:
>
>> Does 320 have 'remote configuration interface' in the NAT tab? I think
>> this is equivalent to 'separate management interface'. I'm not very
>> familiar with the 320 line... or maybe change it to a random nonstandard
>> port just for said customer and then firewall the port at the tower/edge?
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Trey Scarborough  wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't recommend doing it there are not any known security issues
>>> that I can speak of. I do know however that your performance on that CPE
>>> will be go down significantly and I do know outside request can kill them.
>>> I guess a sort of vulnerability.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2016 11:41 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>>>
 All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is
 irritating me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want
 to put it in NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can
 be identified in complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the
 320 CPE I should be aware of? the operator and admin account are
 disabled. Telnet and port 80 are enabled on the WAN.

 also, how functional is the DMZ, will there end up being complaints that
 some game doesnt work?

 --
 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.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
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] 320 with a public IP

2016-05-10 Thread jeff pastuck

The 320 CPE's have a known open DNS resolver issue (responding to DNS
queries from external hosts). I have seen some of the NAT enabled CPE's
choke on the external DNS requests and we then see 95% packet loss to them.
Most of our 320 CPE's operate in bridge mode.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Joe Novak  wrote:

> Does 320 have 'remote configuration interface' in the NAT tab? I think
> this is equivalent to 'separate management interface'. I'm not very
> familiar with the 320 line... or maybe change it to a random nonstandard
> port just for said customer and then firewall the port at the tower/edge?
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Trey Scarborough  wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't recommend doing it there are not any known security issues
>> that I can speak of. I do know however that your performance on that CPE
>> will be go down significantly and I do know outside request can kill them.
>> I guess a sort of vulnerability.
>>
>>
>> On 5/9/2016 11:41 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>>
>>> All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is
>>> irritating me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want
>>> to put it in NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can
>>> be identified in complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the
>>> 320 CPE I should be aware of? the operator and admin account are
>>> disabled. Telnet and port 80 are enabled on the WAN.
>>>
>>> also, how functional is the DMZ, will there end up being complaints that
>>> some game doesnt work?
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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] 320 with a public IP

2016-05-10 Thread Joe Novak

Does 320 have 'remote configuration interface' in the NAT tab? I think this
is equivalent to 'separate management interface'. I'm not very familiar
with the 320 line... or maybe change it to a random nonstandard port just
for said customer and then firewall the port at the tower/edge?

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Trey Scarborough  wrote:

> I wouldn't recommend doing it there are not any known security issues that
> I can speak of. I do know however that your performance on that CPE will be
> go down significantly and I do know outside request can kill them. I guess
> a sort of vulnerability.
>
>
> On 5/9/2016 11:41 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
>> All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is
>> irritating me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want
>> to put it in NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can
>> be identified in complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the
>> 320 CPE I should be aware of? the operator and admin account are
>> disabled. Telnet and port 80 are enabled on the WAN.
>>
>> also, how functional is the DMZ, will there end up being complaints that
>> some game doesnt work?
>>
>> --
>> 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] 320 with a public IP

2016-05-10 Thread Trey Scarborough

I wouldn't recommend doing it there are not any known security issues 
that I can speak of. I do know however that your performance on that CPE 
will be go down significantly and I do know outside request can kill 
them. I guess a sort of vulnerability.


On 5/9/2016 11:41 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is
irritating me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want
to put it in NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can
be identified in complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the
320 CPE I should be aware of? the operator and admin account are
disabled. Telnet and port 80 are enabled on the WAN.

also, how functional is the DMZ, will there end up being complaints that
some game doesnt work?

--
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.

[AFMUG] 320 with a public IP

2016-05-09 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

All our 320s are in bridge mode. We have a fool customer who is irritating
me though, I need to isolate him from our network so I want to put it in
NAT mode, but I need to have him on a public IP so he can be identified in
complaints. Are there any known vulnerabilities in the 320 CPE I should be
aware of? the operator and admin account are disabled. Telnet and port 80
are enabled on the WAN.

also, how functional is the DMZ, will there end up being complaints that
some game doesnt work?

-- 
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] 320 sm cardboard boxes

2016-02-23 Thread Ken Hohhof

Yeah, I have seen cardboard parts bins for sale, I get plastic parts bins at 
Rural King.  But if you use the Cambium CLIPs, I find the cardboard boxes are 
good for storing parts if you cut off the top.

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:44 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] 320 sm cardboard boxes

does anybody know where a guy could get these boxes, just the shell 

these things are perfect for organizing things and we quit buying them

theres no punch print on any to identify them. I assume somewheres theres a 
place that sells boxes

-- 

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] 320 sm cardboard boxes

2016-02-23 Thread Sam Lambie

Uline?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:44 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> does anybody know where a guy could get these boxes, just the shell
>
> these things are perfect for organizing things and we quit buying them
>
> theres no punch print on any to identify them. I assume somewheres theres
> a place that sells boxes
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
-- 
*Sam Lambie*
Taosnet Wireless Tech.
575-758-7598 Office
www.Taosnet.com

[AFMUG] 320 sm cardboard boxes

2016-02-23 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

does anybody know where a guy could get these boxes, just the shell

these things are perfect for organizing things and we quit buying them

theres no punch print on any to identify them. I assume somewheres theres a
place that sells boxes

-- 
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.

[AFMUG] 320 cpe ethernet freezing

2016-01-18 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

did anybody ever find a resoltion that doesnt involve swapping radios or
sending a tech out with heat guns? We RMAd the ones we had with this
problem in the past, but now that there is no more product support we dont
have that option. for customers who have our router we just patiently wait
til enough packets get through to let us swap it to 10 half and it comes
up, albeit with limited capacity on the ethernet

-- 
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] 320 cpe ethernet freezing

2016-01-18 Thread Eric Muehleisen

Never heard of this and we have over a 1000 320 SM's in the air. There
was an issue with cold-snap on the AP that caused reboots (old
hardware rev). Is that not the same issue?

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:06 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
 wrote:
> did anybody ever find a resoltion that doesnt involve swapping radios or
> sending a tech out with heat guns? We RMAd the ones we had with this problem
> in the past, but now that there is no more product support we dont have that
> option. for customers who have our router we just patiently wait til enough
> packets get through to let us swap it to 10 half and it comes up, albeit
> with limited capacity on the ethernet
>
> --
> 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] 320 cpe ethernet freezing

2016-01-18 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

no, when the temps get really cold, theyll not negotiate at anything other
than 10 half. i just found if you reboot them remotely 3-4 times in a row
they warm enough to negotiate to get into the router more easily. The
handful Ive checked in the history are all mounted on the north side of a
house with the exception of one that was on a tower

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Eric Muehleisen  wrote:

> Never heard of this and we have over a 1000 320 SM's in the air. There
> was an issue with cold-snap on the AP that caused reboots (old
> hardware rev). Is that not the same issue?
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:06 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm
>  wrote:
> > did anybody ever find a resoltion that doesnt involve swapping radios or
> > sending a tech out with heat guns? We RMAd the ones we had with this
> problem
> > in the past, but now that there is no more product support we dont have
> that
> > option. for customers who have our router we just patiently wait til
> enough
> > packets get through to let us swap it to 10 half and it comes up, albeit
> > with limited capacity on the ethernet
> >
> > --
> > 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.
>



-- 
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.

[AFMUG] 320 sync

2015-11-25 Thread Rhys Cuff (Latrobe I.T)

Hello

 

I'm planning my 320 - 450 migration

I need to squash the old Wimax spectrum use a little

Does anyone know if a 10mhz 320 will sync with a 7mhz or 3mhz 320?

 

Thanks

 

Rhys

Re: [AFMUG] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-16 Thread Josh Baird

They definitely do not support IF-MIB.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:56 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

> Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
> graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.
>
> Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB interface
> OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have any of that shit
> to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell you if the standard
> stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.
>
> On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> half those would never graph: for example
>
> danEthRxTotalBytes
> 
>  Object
> ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5
> Total number of bytes received.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners 
> wrote:
>
>> Do you want it from the AP
>> 
>> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
>> Or the CPEs?
>> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on
>>> these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1
>>> cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.
>>>
>>> RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something to
>>> do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, and so
>>> far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these trash
>>> cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-16 Thread Eric Muehleisen

SM:

Traffic In: .1.3.6.1.4.1.10529.300.1.2.3.0
Traffic Out: .1.3.6.1.4.1.10529.300.1.2.2.0

Pulled straight from Cacti. Works like a champ.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Josh Baird  wrote:

> They definitely do not support IF-MIB.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:56 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
>
>> Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
>> graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.
>>
>> Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB interface
>> OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have any of that shit
>> to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell you if the standard
>> stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.
>>
>> On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>>
>> half those would never graph: for example
>>
>> danEthRxTotalBytes
>> 
>>  Object
>> ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5
>> Total number of bytes received.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Do you want it from the AP
>>> 
>>> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
>>> Or the CPEs?
>>> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on
 these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1
 cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.

 RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something
 to do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, and
 so far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these
 trash cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device

 --
 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.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-16 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

What about AP

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Eric Muehleisen  wrote:

> SM:
>
> Traffic In: .1.3.6.1.4.1.10529.300.1.2.3.0
> Traffic Out: .1.3.6.1.4.1.10529.300.1.2.2.0
>
> Pulled straight from Cacti. Works like a champ.
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>
>> They definitely do not support IF-MIB.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:56 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
>>> graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.
>>>
>>> Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB interface
>>> OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have any of that shit
>>> to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell you if the standard
>>> stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.
>>>
>>> On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>>>
>>> half those would never graph: for example
>>>
>>> danEthRxTotalBytes
>>> 
>>>  Object
>>> ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5
>>> Total number of bytes received.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Do you want it from the AP
 
 http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
 Or the CPEs?
 http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html

 On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
 thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on
> these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1
> cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.
>
> RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something
> to do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, 
> and
> so far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these
> trash cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device
>
> --
> 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.
>


>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-16 Thread Eric Muehleisen

No can do. Monitor your swichport instead.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 9:46 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What about AP
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Eric Muehleisen 
> wrote:
>
>> SM:
>>
>> Traffic In: .1.3.6.1.4.1.10529.300.1.2.3.0
>> Traffic Out: .1.3.6.1.4.1.10529.300.1.2.2.0
>>
>> Pulled straight from Cacti. Works like a champ.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>>> They definitely do not support IF-MIB.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:56 PM, George Skorup 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
 graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.

 Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB interface
 OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have any of that shit
 to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell you if the standard
 stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.

 On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

 half those would never graph: for example

 danEthRxTotalBytes
 
  Object
 ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5
 Total number of bytes received.

 On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners 
 wrote:

> Do you want it from the AP
> 
> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
> Or the CPEs?
> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on
>> these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1
>> cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.
>>
>> RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something
>> to do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, 
>> and
>> so far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these
>> trash cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>


 --
 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.



>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread Adam Moffett

I used to monitor all kinds of stuff in the 320 SM.  The MIB was 
accurate and I didn't bump into any that didn't work.



On 9/15/2015 11:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on 
these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 
1 cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.


RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something 
to do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated 
AP, and so far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput 
on these trash cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the 
connected device


--
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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread George Skorup

Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.

Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB interface
OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have any of that
shit to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell you if the
standard stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.

On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

half those would never graph: for example

danEthRxTotalBytes

Object ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5

Total number of bytes received.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners > wrote:

Do you want it from the AP

http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
Or the CPEs?

http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> wrote:

I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored
successfully on these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We
have the basics rssi, cinr 1 cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats
would be nice.

RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its
something to do with some interference, But it could boil down
to a saturated AP, and so far as I have been able to tell you
cant monitor throughput on these trash cans other than
monitoring the ethernet of the connected device

--
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.

--
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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread Adam Moffett

Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.

Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB
interface OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have
any of that shit to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell
you if the standard stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.

It's not.

Or the interfaces in the if-mib are virtual interfaces that are not
showing actual trafficor something. Hard to remember.

On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:

half those would never graph: for example

danEthRxTotalBytes

Object ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5

Total number of bytes received.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners > wrote:

Do you want it from the AP

http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
Or the CPEs?

http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
wrote:

I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored
successfully on these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We
have the basics rssi, cinr 1 cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats
would be nice.

RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its
something to do with some interference, But it could boil
down to a saturated AP, and so far as I have been able to
tell you cant monitor throughput on these trash cans other
than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device

--
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.

--
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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

i dont think anyone here has ever been able to monitor throughput that i
recall.
I tried the .0 witht he counter, still a 0 (powercode)


On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

>
> Try putting a .0 at the end of that OID and see if it then starts
> graphing. That's common with a lot of OIDs.
>
> Also, how the hell would they not support the standard IF-MIB interface
> OID tree. I assume you've tried that anyway. I don't have any of that shit
> to test against. A walk of .1.3.6.1.2.1.2 would tell you if the standard
> stuff is there. That's dumb if it's not.
>
> It's not.
>
> Or the interfaces in the if-mib are virtual interfaces that are not
> showing actual trafficor something.  Hard to remember.
>
>
>
> On 9/15/2015 10:36 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
>
> half those would never graph: for example
>
> danEthRxTotalBytes
> 
>  Object
> ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5
> Total number of bytes received.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners < 
> cstann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you want it from the AP
>> 
>> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
>> Or the CPEs?
>> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on
>>> these pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1
>>> cinr 2 etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.
>>>
>>> RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something to
>>> do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, and so
>>> far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these trash
>>> cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
>
>


-- 
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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread Adam Moffett




On 9/16/2015 12:36 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm wrote:
i dont think anyone here has ever been able to monitor throughput that 
i recall.

I tried the .0 witht he counter, still a 0 (powercode)


I'm pretty sure I did monitor throughput.  I don't have the 320 anymore 
so can't say for sure.

Re: [AFMUG] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

half those would never graph: for example

danEthRxTotalBytes
Object
ID: 1.3.1.4.1.32584.1.8.13.5
Total number of bytes received.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Colin Stanners 
wrote:

> Do you want it from the AP
> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
> Or the CPEs?
> http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on these
>> pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1 cinr 2
>> etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.
>>
>> RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something to
>> do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, and so
>> far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these trash
>> cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>
>


-- 
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.

[AFMUG] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on these
pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1 cinr 2
etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.

RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something to do
with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, and so
far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these trash
cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device

-- 
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] 320 monitoring OIDs

2015-09-15 Thread Colin Stanners

Do you want it from the AP
http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.DAN-BASIC-MIB-ADMIN.html
Or the CPEs?
http://support.cambiumnetworks.com/framed/onlinetools/content.Motorola-CPE-PRIVATE-MIB.html

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:16 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm <
thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I need to know OIDS (numeric) that can be monitored successfully on these
> pieces of shit. Im stuck with it. We have the basics rssi, cinr 1 cinr 2
> etc. Any ethernet stats would be nice.
>
> RIght know we have random loss to the subs, im guessing its something to
> do with some interference, But it could boil down to a saturated AP, and so
> far as I have been able to tell you cant monitor throughput on these trash
> cans other than monitoring the ethernet of the connected device
>
> --
> 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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

Ive got a guy at the AP right now verifying the connections, I was really
kind of hoping in the back of my mind we had just gotten a bad batch of
leads. Not looking that way.

Our corn is hydroponic this year, farmers will be harvesting from boats

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:

   Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections
 off the field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is
 probably near max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year
 same as us, so the crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches
 per day.

 Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to
 see if there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are
 talking about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.

 Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just
 slide it up and down.


  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] 320 fade

  Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about
 june 16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs
 facing south, though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade

 --
   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.




-- 
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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread Mark Radabaugh

I suspect the real issue is the 45lbs of mosquitos per cubic foot in the LOS 
path.

Can someone in California send me a couple of extra quarts of blood?  Er, wait 
- let’s leave out California...

Mark


 On Jul 17, 2015, at 2:28 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
 
 Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections off the 
 field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is probably near 
 max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year same as us, so the 
 crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches per day.
  
 Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to see 
 if there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are 
 talking about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.
  
 Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just slide 
 it up and down.
  
  
 From: That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
 To: af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] 320 fade
  
 Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about june 
 16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs facing 
 south, though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade
  
 -- 
 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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread Ken Hohhof

Internet is a basic human right now, so we should be able to use eminent domain 
to condemn trees and crops that interfere with the signal.  I am thinking Judge 
Dredd with a chainsaw and a sprayer full of Roundup.  Wait, the crops are 
resistant to Roundup.  Maybe a drone with Agent Orange.  That might work on the 
trees, too.

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:54 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 fade

Ive got a guy at the AP right now verifying the connections, I was really kind 
of hoping in the back of my mind we had just gotten a bad batch of leads. Not 
looking that way. 

Our corn is hydroponic this year, farmers will be harvesting from boats

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:

  Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections off the 
field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is probably near 
max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year same as us, so the 
crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches per day.

  Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to see 
if there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are talking 
about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.

  Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just slide 
it up and down.

  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: [AFMUG] 320 fade

  Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about june 
16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs facing south, 
though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade

  -- 

  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.

-- 

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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

Im down with drones filled with agent orange. It makes it totally legit
because our logo is orange

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:

   Internet is a basic human right now, so we should be able to use
 eminent domain to condemn trees and crops that interfere with the signal.
 I am thinking Judge Dredd with a chainsaw and a sprayer full of Roundup.
 Wait, the crops are resistant to Roundup.  Maybe a drone with Agent
 Orange.  That might work on the trees, too.


  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 1:54 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 fade

  Ive got a guy at the AP right now verifying the connections, I was
 really kind of hoping in the back of my mind we had just gotten a bad batch
 of leads. Not looking that way.

 Our corn is hydroponic this year, farmers will be harvesting from boats

 On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:

   Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections
 off the field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is
 probably near max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year
 same as us, so the crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches
 per day.

 Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to
 see if there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are
 talking about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.

 Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just
 slide it up and down.


  *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
 *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* [AFMUG] 320 fade

  Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about
 june 16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs
 facing south, though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade

 --
   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.




 --
   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.




-- 
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.

[AFMUG] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about june
16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs facing
south, though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade

-- 
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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread Ken Hohhof

Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections off the 
field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is probably near 
max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year same as us, so the 
crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches per day.

Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to see if 
there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are talking 
about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.

Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just slide 
it up and down.


From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] 320 fade

Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about june 16, 
im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs facing south, 
though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade


-- 

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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread Ken Hohhof

Need the Wagner music too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30QzJKCUekQ

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 2:09 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 fade

Im down with drones filled with agent orange. It makes it totally legit because 
our logo is orange

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:

  Internet is a basic human right now, so we should be able to use eminent 
domain to condemn trees and crops that interfere with the signal.  I am 
thinking Judge Dredd with a chainsaw and a sprayer full of Roundup.  Wait, the 
crops are resistant to Roundup.  Maybe a drone with Agent Orange.  That might 
work on the trees, too.

  From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
  Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:54 PM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 fade

  Ive got a guy at the AP right now verifying the connections, I was really 
kind of hoping in the back of my mind we had just gotten a bad batch of leads. 
Not looking that way. 

  Our corn is hydroponic this year, farmers will be harvesting from boats

  On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:

Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections off 
the field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is probably 
near max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year same as us, so 
the crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches per day.

Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to see 
if there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are talking 
about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.

Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just 
slide it up and down.

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] 320 fade

Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about june 
16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs facing south, 
though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade

-- 

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.

  -- 

  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.

-- 

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] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread Bill Prince


I've seen a fair bit of the midnight chainsaw blight..

bp
part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com

On 7/17/2015 12:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
Internet is a basic human right now, so we should be able to use 
eminent domain to condemn trees and crops that interfere with the 
signal.  I am thinking Judge Dredd with a chainsaw and a sprayer full 
of Roundup.  Wait, the crops are resistant to Roundup.  Maybe a drone 
with Agent Orange.  That might work on the trees, too.

Re: [AFMUG] 320 fade

2015-07-17 Thread Dan Petermann

A drone with a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

On Jul 17, 2015, at 1:09 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 Im down with drones filled with agent orange. It makes it totally legit 
 because our logo is orange
 
 On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
 Internet is a basic human right now, so we should be able to use eminent 
 domain to condemn trees and crops that interfere with the signal.  I am 
 thinking Judge Dredd with a chainsaw and a sprayer full of Roundup.  Wait, 
 the crops are resistant to Roundup.  Maybe a drone with Agent Orange.  That 
 might work on the trees, too.
  
  
 From: That One Guy /sarcasm
 Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:54 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 fade
  
 Ive got a guy at the AP right now verifying the connections, I was really 
 kind of hoping in the back of my mind we had just gotten a bad batch of 
 leads. Not looking that way.
  
 Our corn is hydroponic this year, farmers will be harvesting from boats
  
 On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Ken Hohhof af...@kwisp.com wrote:
 Probably the same thing we’ve been dealing with in 5 GHz, reflections off the 
 field corn.  In our area the corn is starting to tassel and is probably near 
 max height.  I assume you have had tons of rain this year same as us, so the 
 crops are very juicy, and also have been growing inches per day.
  
 Try sending a guy out and moving the SM up and down +/- about 2 feet to see 
 if there is a sweet spot that gets you back your 20 dB.  Unless you are 
 talking about fades that only happen at sunup/sundown.
  
 Easiest at a location where the SM is mounted on a pole so you can just slide 
 it up and down.
  
  
 From: That One Guy /sarcasm
 Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 1:20 PM
 To: af@afmug.com
 Subject: [AFMUG] 320 fade
  
 Is anybody else seeing an insane amount of fade on 320 APs since about june 
 16, im in central illinois, seeing it particularly strong on APs facing 
 south, though I dont know if that matters, we are talking 20db fade
  
 -- 
 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.
 
 
  
 -- 
 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.
 
 
 
 -- 
 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] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread That One Guy /sarcasm

are you getting the connectorized performance gains within fcc eirp? Ive
come to find a good majority of field test results are invalid solely
because the tests are not performed legally

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

  On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs.



 In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 3.65
 feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then a standard
 SM.  It was explained to me that is because it’s not a “need more power,
 burn through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the beam so much than the
 wimax can’t work around the tree elements” issue.



 Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on the
 list confirmed they had similar results.



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer
 *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM

 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 Paul,



 Thanks for the response.  More specifically I’m interested in the SM side
 of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP.  However,
 at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with
 a higher gain antenna.  We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out
 performs the 320.



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



 *From:* Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net

 *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM

 *To:* af@afmug.com

 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 Ben,



 The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively,
 for both platforms.



 Paul



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
 Behalf Of *Ben Royer
 *Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  I’m
 just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of
 around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for
 that next great thing.



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



 *From:* Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net

 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM

 *To:* af@afmug.com

 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means
 you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a
 job as the 320



 Paul



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com af-boun...@afmug.com] *On
 Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 MHz
 cash-for-clunkers program.



 *From:* That One Guy /sarcasm thatoneguyst...@gmail.com

 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM

 *To:* af@afmug.com

 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a
 dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some
 creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing
 the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us
 320 CPEs to redeploy.



 The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary
 server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the
 320 APs to small sites.



 We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up
 there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and
 our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent
 been able to test the 1x magic out.



 I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to
 sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential
 nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with
 competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an
 AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life,
 but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.



 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

 I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320
 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65
 product?



 Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding
 SMs to what you already have?



 Paul



 Paul McCall, Pres.

 PDMNet / Florida Broadband

 658 Old Dixie Highway

 Vero Beach, FL 32962

 772-564-6800 office

 772-473-0352 cell

 www.pdmnet.com

 pa...@pdmnet.net







 --

 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.


--

 avast

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs.

In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 3.65 
feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then a standard SM. 
 It was explained to me that is because it’s not a “need more power, burn 
through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the beam so much than the wimax 
can’t work around the tree elements” issue.

Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on the list 
confirmed they had similar results.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Paul,

Thanks for the response.  More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of 
the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP.  However, at the 
SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with a higher 
gain antenna.  We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 
320.

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

From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Ben,

The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for 
both platforms.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  I’m just 
curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 
2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next 
great thing.

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

From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re 
going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 MHz 
cash-for-clunkers program.

From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream 
of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative 
Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs 
until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to 
redeploy.

The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary 
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 
APs to small sites.

We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there 
to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 
450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to 
test the 1x magic out.

I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell 
higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos 
customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors 
down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the 
throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly 
sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall 
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series 
because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product?

Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding SMs to 
what you already have?

Paul

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net




--
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.



avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.





avast! Antivirushttps

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread Ben Royer

Paul,

Thanks for the response.  More specifically I’m interested in the SM side of 
the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP.  However, at the 
SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a connectorized radio with a higher 
gain antenna.  We’ve seen some initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 
320.

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

From: Paul McCall 
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Ben,

 

The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for 
both platforms.

 

Paul

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

 

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  I’m just 
curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 
2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next 
great thing.

 

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

 

From: Paul McCall 

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

 

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re 
going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320

 

Paul

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

 

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 MHz 
cash-for-clunkers program.

 

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

 

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream 
of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative 
Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs 
until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to 
redeploy. 

 

The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary 
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 
APs to small sites.

 

We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there 
to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 
450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to 
test the 1x magic out.

 

I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell 
higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos 
customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors 
down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the 
throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly 
sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.

 

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series 
because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product?

 

Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding SMs to 
what you already have?

 

Paul

 

Paul McCall, Pres.

PDMNet / Florida Broadband 

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800 office

772-473-0352 cell

www.pdmnet.com

pa...@pdmnet.net

 





 

-- 

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.

 


--

  avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. 

  Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
  Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
  avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
 

 



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 10:17:58 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread Mathew Howard

Under the old rules - if I understand right, we'll eventually have to
register existing stuff with an SAS, but nothing has really changed for
now. You can keep operating under the old rules until some time in 2020.

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

  OK, but under what rule set, for how long before you have to comply with
 the new rules coming out?



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM
 *To:* af
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 You can still add new 3.65 AP locations from any of the currently
 available manufacturers, as long as you already have a 3.65 license.



 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

 Interesting.  I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the
 firmware to interface 320 stuff with the FCC database.  Probably just a
 dream though.



 On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road.
 The way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would
 make that happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms
 playing in “your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency
 contention challenges that you have now.   Its just that they would be
 restricted from competing with the known higher priority users in the
 database.



 I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for
 those that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS
 customers.



 The considerations seem to be…



 1)  Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the
 customers that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved.

 (if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band
 (3.65), then the 450 seems to make sense for that.

 2)  Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old
 320 series for whatever they can get.

 3)  Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the
 specific problem.  BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate
 that)



 *At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any
 manufacturer) or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with
 the FCC rules?*



 *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *That One Guy
 /sarcasm
 *Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM


 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using



 Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a
 dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some
 creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing
 the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us
 320 CPEs to redeploy.



 The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary
 server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the
 320 APs to small sites.



 We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up
 there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and
 our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent
 been able to test the 1x magic out.



 I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to
 sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential
 nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with
 competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an
 AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life,
 but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.



 On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

 I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320
 series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65
 product?



 Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding
 SMs to what you already have?



 Paul



 Paul McCall, Pres.

 PDMNet / Florida Broadband

 658 Old Dixie Highway

 Vero Beach, FL 32962

 772-564-6800 office

 772-473-0352 cell

 www.pdmnet.com

 pa...@pdmnet.net







 --

 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] 320 series - still using

OK, but under what rule set, for how long before you have to comply with the 
new rules coming out?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:51 PM
To: af
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

You can still add new 3.65 AP locations from any of the currently available 
manufacturers, as long as you already have a 3.65 license.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Paul McCall 
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
Interesting.  I agree with the dream of having someone re-write the firmware to 
interface 320 stuff with the FCC database.  Probably just a dream though.

On the 450, you mention being able to sync with customers down the road.  The 
way I understand it, there is no standard being proposed that would make that 
happen… if you have 5 other people with like or unlike platforms playing in 
“your” RF space, they can still have the same frequency contention challenges 
that you have now.   Its just that they would be restricted from competing with 
the known higher priority users in the database.

I was curious to see what the consensus is on 320 use moving forward for those 
that have found it to be the only way to service certain NLOS customers.

The considerations seem to be…

1)  Replace with 450 series gear at 3.65 and loose some of the customers 
that were tough NLOS problems that the 320 series solved.
(if your were using the 320 only because it was a cleaner freq. band (3.65), 
then the 450 seems to make sense for that.

2)  Replace with Telrad gear at 3.65 (pricey) and sell off their old 320 
series for whatever they can get.

3)  Deploy MORE 320 gear because it is working well and solves the specific 
problem.  BW limited but works pretty well (*some might debate that)

At this moment, can you add ANY new 3.65 AP locations (from any manufacturer) 
or forced to wait until the “next” thing comes to play with the FCC rules?

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.commailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf 
Of That One Guy /sarcasm
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:09 PM

To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream 
of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative 
Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs 
until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to 
redeploy.

The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary 
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 
APs to small sites.

We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there 
to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 
450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to 
test the 1x magic out.

I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell 
higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos 
customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors 
down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the 
throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly 
sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall 
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series 
because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product?

Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding SMs to 
what you already have?

Paul

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net

--
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] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread George Skorup

We had the exact same results. Bare SM worked better than reflector 
through trees. And it actually worked pretty good, got about 24x7Mbps 
linktests. That was until the trees started blowing in the wind, 
linktests were all over the place. Then it got worse, the trees got wet 
and the test SMs we had on the sector both dropped session 10-20 times 
per day and linktests dropped down to 3-5Mbps a lot. The power level 
dropped maybe 3-6dB, but the multipath increased a lot which is what 
hurt the most. The 450 definitely handles multipath better than FSK, but 
obviously nowhere near as well as a platform designed to take advantage 
of it. Maybe 5ms framing would help, but we tore that test sector down 
before it came around.


This is why I keep asking Cambium to make an integrated panel SM for 
3GHz. More gain than a bare SM and not as narrow as a reflector.


We just did a 5.5 mile 3.6 450 SM on a 2' dish today. Can't see the 
tower at all, no trees up close, but it's getting -73 and solid 6X. 
Doing 30Mbps down, 9Mbps up. I'm surprised. But like Ken always says, 
that's just because of the low noise floor.


On 6/4/2015 10:27 AM, Paul McCall wrote:


On the SM side, we did not try connectorized 3.65 450 SMs.

In our past experience with 320s, the SMCs used with a KP Performance 
3.65 feedhorn reflector got less results at times for NLOS shots then 
a standard SM.  It was explained to me that is because it’s not a 
“need more power, burn through trees issue”… it’s a “don’t narrow the 
beam so much than the wimax can’t work around the tree elements” issue.


Our testing exposure was rather limited and we stopped when others on 
the list confirmed they had similar results.


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer
*Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:18 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Paul,

Thanks for the response.  More specifically I’m interested in the SM 
side of the test, as we too are using the Cambium Antennas at the AP.  
However, at the SM side, I’d recommend a NLOS test using a 
connectorized radio with a higher gain antenna.  We’ve seen some 
initial NLOS tests where 450 out performs the 320.


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

*From:*Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net

*Sent:*Thursday, June 04, 2015 8:30 AM

*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Ben,

The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, 
respectively, for both platforms.


Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer
*Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  
I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a 
network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position 
of looking for that next great thing.


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

*From:*Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM

*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means 
you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good 
a job as the 320


Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 
MHz cash-for-clunkers program.


*From:*That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM

*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have 
a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware 
load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 
APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with 
telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy.


The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an 
intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we 
can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites.


We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us 
up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease 
side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good 
links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out.


I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able 
to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the 
potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to 
sync with competitors

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread Ben Royer

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  I’m just 
curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 
2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next 
great thing.

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

From: Paul McCall 
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re 
going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320

 

Paul

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

 

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 MHz 
cash-for-clunkers program.

 

From: That One Guy /sarcasm 

Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM

To: af@afmug.com 

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

 

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream 
of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative 
Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs 
until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to 
redeploy. 

 

The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary 
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 
APs to small sites.

 

We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there 
to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 
450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to 
test the 1x magic out.

 

I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell 
higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos 
customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors 
down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the 
throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly 
sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.

 

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:

I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series 
because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product?

 

Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding SMs to 
what you already have?

 

Paul

 

Paul McCall, Pres.

PDMNet / Florida Broadband 

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800 office

772-473-0352 cell

www.pdmnet.com

pa...@pdmnet.net

 





 

-- 

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.



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread Adam Moffett

An assertion made on the forum by somebody from Cambium was that the 450 
in 3.65ghz wouldn't hit as many of the hard to reach places as the 320 
did, but that you would end up with higher throughput on the ones that 
did work.




On 6/4/2015 9:10 AM, Ben Royer wrote:
What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  
I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a 
network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position 
of looking for that next great thing.

Thank you,
Ben Royer, Operations Manager
Royell Communications, Inc.
217-965-3699 www.royell.net
*From:* Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means 
you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good 
a job as the 320


Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 
MHz cash-for-clunkers program.


*From:*That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM

*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have 
a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware 
load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 
APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with 
telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy.


The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an 
intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we 
can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites.


We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us 
up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease 
side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good 
links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out.


I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able 
to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the 
potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to 
sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, 
especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using 
gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access 
to the purse strings.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:


I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 
series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 
3.65 product?


Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just 
adding SMs to what you already have?


Paul

Paul McCall, Pres.

PDMNet / Florida Broadband

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office

772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell

www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/

pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net



--

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.






avast! Antivirus https://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message 
clean.


Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Ben,

The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for 
both platforms.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  I’m just 
curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 
2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next 
great thing.

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

From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re 
going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 MHz 
cash-for-clunkers program.

From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream 
of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative 
Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs 
until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to 
redeploy.

The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary 
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 
APs to small sites.

We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there 
to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 
450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to 
test the 1x magic out.

I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell 
higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos 
customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors 
down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the 
throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly 
sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall 
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series 
because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product?

Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding SMs to 
what you already have?

Paul

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net

--
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.

avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

2015-06-04 Thread Adam Moffett


Were you using a reflector on the 450SM?

On 6/4/2015 9:30 AM, Paul McCall wrote:


Ben,

The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, 
respectively, for both platforms.


Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ben Royer
*Sent:* Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  
I’m just curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a 
network of around 2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position 
of looking for that next great thing.


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

*From:*Paul McCall mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM

*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means 
you’re going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good 
a job as the 320


Paul

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
*Sent:* Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
*To:* af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 
MHz cash-for-clunkers program.


*From:*That One Guy /sarcasm mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com

*Sent:*Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM

*To:*af@afmug.com mailto:af@afmug.com

*Subject:*Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have 
a dream of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware 
load. Some creative Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 
APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs until we migrate the site to LTE with 
telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to redeploy.


The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an 
intermediary server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we 
can redeploy the 320 APs to small sites.


We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us 
up there to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease 
side and our other 450 test site has only 3 users on it with good 
links so we havent been able to test the 1x magic out.


I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able 
to sell higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the 
potential nlos customers we would lose. something about being able to 
sync with competitors down the road seemed like a good idea to me, 
especially with an AP with 3x the throughput and the whole not using 
gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly sysadmin with no access 
to the purse strings.


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall pa...@pdmnet.net 
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:


I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 
series because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 
3.65 product?


Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just 
adding SMs to what you already have?


Paul

Paul McCall, Pres.

PDMNet / Florida Broadband

658 Old Dixie Highway

Vero Beach, FL 32962

772-564-6800 tel:772-564-6800 office

772-473-0352 tel:772-473-0352 cell

www.pdmnet.com http://www.pdmnet.com/

pa...@pdmnet.net mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net



--

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.




avast! Antivirus https://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message 
clean.


Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

With or without…. Made like difference.  Sometimes the reflector made no 
different and on occasion made it worse depending on the densities of the trees.

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:36 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Were you using a reflector on the 450SM?
On 6/4/2015 9:30 AM, Paul McCall wrote:
Ben,

The testing was based on using the standard Cambium antenna, respectively, for 
both platforms.

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ben Royer
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:11 AM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

What antenna are you using in your testing of the 450 vs. 320 NLOS?  I’m just 
curious because this is an interesting report, as we have a network of around 
2,500 320 customers, and we are in the same position of looking for that next 
great thing.

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

From: Paul McCallmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:40 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

But, if you are using 320 for NLOS solutions, the 450 trade up means you’re 
going to lose customers since the 450 doesn’t do nearly as good a job as the 320

Paul

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 5:37 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Don’t they have another WiMAX-to-450 tradeup going on?  Kind of a 3650 MHz 
cash-for-clunkers program.

From: That One Guy /sarcasmmailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:08 PM
To: af@afmug.commailto:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using

Im stuck with it. We bought an overstock load of APs and SMs. We have a dream 
of Telrad working out to save the day with their firmware load. Some creative 
Telrad AP deployments gradually replacing the 320 APs, utilizing the 320 CPEs 
until we migrate the site to LTE with telrad CPEs, giving us 320 CPEs to 
redeploy.

The dream is somebody will write some magic code to sit on an intermediary 
server to communicate with the FCC database thing so we can redeploy the 320 
APs to small sites.

We had two test sites for the 450. One site landlord hasnt allowed us up there 
to swap equipment, we have to deal with that on the lease side and our other 
450 test site has only 3 users on it with good links so we havent been able to 
test the 1x magic out.

I would have preferred to more aggressively pursue the 450 and be able to sell 
higher throughput higher dollar connections, to offset the potential nlos 
customers we would lose. something about being able to sync with competitors 
down the road seemed like a good idea to me, especially with an AP with 3x the 
throughput and the whole not using gear thats end of life, but i am but a lowly 
sysadmin with no access to the purse strings.

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Paul McCall 
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net wrote:
I am just curious how many of you have decided to keep using the 320 series 
because it goes through trees a lot better than the 450 series 3.65 product?

Are you expanding with it as far as towers go?  Or, are you just adding SMs to 
what you already have?

Paul

Paul McCall, Pres.
PDMNet / Florida Broadband
658 Old Dixie Highway
Vero Beach, FL 32962
772-564-6800tel:772-564-6800 office
772-473-0352tel:772-473-0352 cell
www.pdmnet.comhttp://www.pdmnet.com/
pa...@pdmnet.netmailto:pa...@pdmnet.net

--
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.

avast! Antivirushttps://www.avast.com/antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 150604-0, 06/04/2015
Tested on: 6/4/2015 8:10:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2015 AVAST Software.

Re: [AFMUG] 320 series - still using