Re: [WISPA] VOIP consultants?
I'd recommend "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who is both knowledge and has relationships with many VoIP providers. -Matt Chadd Thompson wrote: Anyone know of any VOIP consultants? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] VOIP consultants?
I too would give Peter a high recommendation. Peter has EARNED my loyalty more than once. He has a wealth of knowledge, diverse portfolio and is in the deal for the long-term relationship -- not the immediate sale! - Cliff On 8/18/06 7:09 AM, "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd recommend "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> who is both knowledge and > has relationships with many VoIP providers. > > -Matt > > Chadd Thompson wrote: >> Anyone know of any VOIP consultants? >> -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads Regardless of the original thread topic, I'd argue that... The goal is to find a manufacturer that can deliver what we need, the complete solution, at the price we need. If someone can do that, there is not much more to find out, in my mind. Its not about who is better, its who can deliver, because WISPs are starving for solutions. When I think about it, until just recently, I have been using the same product that I selected as best for me 5 years ago and there are two reasons for it. 1) Loyalty to vendor and 2) there is lots of advancement, but not enough of a value to justify change. A great OS does nothing if it can;t run on adequate hardware, and adequate hardware can't do much without adequate software. I am exstatic to hear about what Lonnie has accomplished with his new War/V3 solution. To my recognition, he is the first to deliver a complete low cost solution to meet todays ISP's backhaul needs. (that means he's listening to WISPs). It delivers low cost, total link w/ antennas, radios, cases, etc, under $1000, it allows us to transparently bridge without compromising MTU delivery, and it will pass 35 mbps, adeqaute speed for backhauling a 6 six sector cell site. First, a product must meet the need of the solution. Every other component of the OS's I feel are almost pointless, or just value add to help tip the scale. A 12-20 mbps solution is just not enough. I'm not saying there are not other vendors with adeqaute solutions, nor that the other products don't have valueable features for other solutions. But War/V3 might have been the first to deliver all three needs in a PTP (also possibly PtMP sectors, but thats a different discussion with different things to compare.). For that recognition is due, and I commend him. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "JohnnyO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:37 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:32 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 11MByte/sec as in approx 88Mbps? Sounds about like NStreme Turbo (40MHz channel) or Alvarion B100 (40MHz channel). Considering this thread was originally about the RB532 and its shortcomings, has anyone tried loading MikroTik OS onto the StarOS 533MHz hardware? *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. We shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~ JohnnyO Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:25 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 Lonnie, Wow, that was fast. Great New! Testing starts this week. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 Tom, The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high values if your cards support jumbo frames. Our WAR board, with its very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU. Most other cards have limits in the 2K to 4K range. We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the updated x86 WRAP version. They have the same features as the WAR version. I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode that is no longer a 24 hour trial. It saves settings and everything works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add value. You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and rip) for free. We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, bandwidth control and our firewall scripting. We are pretty sure that more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet with approval. Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding. We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to well under 8 MB and average ram use on bootup is about 16 MB. It took a long time to get here and we have to thank everybody for being patient. Some of you wrote us off and figured that V3 would never reach the light of day, so I hope you take a look at what this new release can do. Lonnie On 8/15/06, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lonnie, When you get that feature solved / added, please let me know, or make a public announcement. If you let me know, I'll do a bunch of talk for you persoanlly, to promote the feature. Thanks. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixe
RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2
Let me add that the new version of StarOs is passing vlans like a charm... Kudos for Valemount for such a quick response to customer request... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 >Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads Regardless of the original thread topic, I'd argue that... The goal is to find a manufacturer that can deliver what we need, the complete solution, at the price we need. If someone can do that, there is not much more to find out, in my mind. Its not about who is better, its who can deliver, because WISPs are starving for solutions. When I think about it, until just recently, I have been using the same product that I selected as best for me 5 years ago and there are two reasons for it. 1) Loyalty to vendor and 2) there is lots of advancement, but not enough of a value to justify change. A great OS does nothing if it can;t run on adequate hardware, and adequate hardware can't do much without adequate software. I am exstatic to hear about what Lonnie has accomplished with his new War/V3 solution. To my recognition, he is the first to deliver a complete low cost solution to meet todays ISP's backhaul needs. (that means he's listening to WISPs). It delivers low cost, total link w/ antennas, radios, cases, etc, under $1000, it allows us to transparently bridge without compromising MTU delivery, and it will pass 35 mbps, adeqaute speed for backhauling a 6 six sector cell site. First, a product must meet the need of the solution. Every other component of the OS's I feel are almost pointless, or just value add to help tip the scale. A 12-20 mbps solution is just not enough. I'm not saying there are not other vendors with adeqaute solutions, nor that the other products don't have valueable features for other solutions. But War/V3 might have been the first to deliver all three needs in a PTP (also possibly PtMP sectors, but thats a different discussion with different things to compare.). For that recognition is due, and I commend him. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "JohnnyO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:37 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Brad Belton > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:32 AM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > > > 11MByte/sec as in approx 88Mbps? Sounds about like NStreme Turbo (40MHz > channel) or Alvarion B100 (40MHz channel). > > Considering this thread was originally about the RB532 and its > shortcomings, has anyone tried loading MikroTik OS onto the StarOS > 533MHz hardware? > > *Lonnie is famous for hijacking threads to promote his products. We > shouldn't punish him for it because after all, he is canadian ! :)~ > > JohnnyO > > Brad > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:25 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > > Lonnie, > > Wow, that was fast. Great New! > Testing starts this week. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:24 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Routerboard 532 and NStreme2 > > >> Tom, >> >> The new V3 release has been posted and you can set MTU to very high >> values if your cards support jumbo frames. Our WAR board, with its >> very advanced Intel Ethernet can do 16K for the MTU. Most other cards > >> have limits in the 2K to 4K range. >> >> We also have released the first x86 PC Architecture version and the >> updated x86 WRAP version. They have the same features as the WAR >> version. >> >> I'm not sure if we mentioned it but the x86 version has a free mode >> that is no longer a 24 hour trial. It saves settings and everything >> works, except of course the advanced features that we use to add >> value. You can use it for fairly advance routing (quagga has ospf and >> rip) for free. >> >> We'll require a paid license for wireless, policy or source routing, >> bandwidth control and our firewall scripting. We are pretty sure that > >> more than 11 MBytes/sec in Turbo mode on a power machine will meet >> with approval. Device bonding will be coming fairly soon and it will >> allow simple hdx bonding, fdx bonding and failover bonding. >> >> We use the Linux 2.6 kernel and we have been able to get this image to >
Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum gets returned. Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either. What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the form of rebates at time quotas are met. The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be jsut as valuable. For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to consumer well being. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model winning. -Matt Rich Comroe wrote: Amen. Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy designed to serve the public. This had a major role in the US cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any good). Why can't our government understand this? European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it). The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government revenue. But that's just me. Rich - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Finally, a big company that's got the brains to tell the government to stick their high price spectrum tax where the sun don't shine! marlon - Original Message - From: "Peter R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:38 AM Subject: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060816/tc_nm/telecoms_wireless_satellite_dc_3 Thank you. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate 813.963.5884 efax 530-323-7025 http://4isps.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
I'm NOT reading this right when you combine "46 Mbps" and "900 mhz" in the same paragraph ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM > Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS > > >> With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice >> before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, >> I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw >> >> JohnnyO wrote: >>> I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS >>> crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I >>> would look for posts labled Star-OS ! >> -- >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Tom, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story I'm NOT reading this right when you combine "46 Mbps" and "900 mhz" in the same paragraph ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
I usually use 900Mhz to tackle Pine trees for up to 3 mbps, and only made reference to it from past experience. My link in the post was with Atlas 5.8Ghz PTP. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story I'm NOT reading this right when you combine "46 Mbps" and "900 mhz" in the same paragraph ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Tom, Am I missing your reply .? this is the 2nd post from you this am that is only you signature. - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:09 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story I'm NOT reading this right when you combine "46 Mbps" and "900 mhz" in the same paragraph ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
Way back in the time known as "BC" ... (that's "Before Cellular"), the FCC authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage licenses. An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC actually issued the licenses for a "fee". The terms of the license required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date. It was (IMHO) rational, and served the market of radio users. Doesn't sound that far off from what Matt describes. Cellular changed all that. In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of applications for a limited number of licenses. Cellular design dictated that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at will within the served area. But it was made clear that all licensed systems would have to follow the "standard" (AMPS) and be interoperable. They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out of it). Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever technology they wanted! Interoperability in the interest of the nation's good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be extracted in return for licenses. Consumer service (coverage) for digital cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4 out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned, and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership (adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their technology). All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept). Rich - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum gets returned. Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either. What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the form of rebates at time quotas are met. The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be jsut as valuable. For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to consumer well being. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Imagine what would happen if the FCC sold the license not to the highest bidder, but the one that was contractually forced to serve the most customers. Either way the company in question would require billions to win, but the later option might actually result in more customers being served, the money being spent on deployment, and the ability for innovative companies to raise money contingent on their business model winning. -Matt Rich Comroe wrote: Amen. Designing government policy for the purpose of generating the highest income from spectrum licensing is completely contrary to policy designed to serve the public. This had a major role in the US cellular industry losing the worldwide lead (which didn't do any American any good). Why can't our government understand this? European 3G spectrum auctions nearly broke the back of BT (forced it into bankruptcy and spliting the company such that the telecom half didn't sink with the cellular half ... or at least that's how I understood it). The FCC should be managing spectrum for the benefit of the American people, not managing spectrum to maximize government revenue. But that's just me. Rich - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General Li
RE: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale
I am always amazed at the ideas that come out of this list. I totally agree with Rich here about how the federal government keeps finding ways to slow down the entrepreneurial spirit with their greed. It is like the frog story. (When you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out of your pot. If you put it in cool water and slowly turn up the heat, it will just sit there and get cooked.) When you back up and take a look at the big picture and see how we got to the level of auctioning "air", it is apparent that the more we accept from the government, the more they want in return. So, what is the answer?? How do make progress in our industry and lose spectrum at the same time because we don't have deep pockets? Thanks for the post on FCC history Rich. Matt, I think you have a good start to a good idea. Imagine accountability in our govt, schools, etc. Regards, David Weddell Director of Sales 260 827 2551 Office 800 363 4881 Ext 2551 260 273 7547 Cell www.onlyinternet.net www.oibw.net -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rich Comroe Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale Way back in the time known as "BC" ... (that's "Before Cellular"), the FCC authorized different frequency coordinators in various markets to manage licenses. An applicant applied to the frequency coordinator for the frequency, lat, lon, and power of a desired station, the frequency coordinator checked for conflict with other licensed stations, and the FCC actually issued the licenses for a "fee". The terms of the license required implementation within a year (IIRC), and the license holder was required to submit at some interval (yearly?) how many transceivers were served to the coordinator to keep its database up to date. It was (IMHO) rational, and served the market of radio users. Doesn't sound that far off from what Matt describes. Cellular changed all that. In the early 80s the FCC feared an avalanche of applications for a limited number of licenses. Cellular design dictated that the licenses be regional, permitting the operator to place stations at will within the served area. But it was made clear that all licensed systems would have to follow the "standard" (AMPS) and be interoperable. They tried a lottery, hoping market pressures would force the multiple applicants to consolidate down to fewer applications (that deals, perhaps monitary in nature, would be made among the applicants keeping the FCC out of it). Later when the first PCS licenses were issued it's my impression that an accounting type mentality had taken over at the FCC ... let's grant the license to the highest bidder ... and to maximize the monitary value, they made it clear that any carrier winning the license could put up whatever technology they wanted! Interoperability in the interest of the nation's good was dismissed in favor of maximizing government revenue ... and the first PCS auction amazed everyone how much government revenue could be extracted in return for licenses. Consumer service (coverage) for digital cellular plummeted as subscribers could receive no service from roughly 4 out of 5 deployed towers, the US digital cellular standard was abandonned, and the rest of the world looked elsewhere for digital cellular leadership (adopting GSM, largely because of the simple fact that European licensing strategies were much more rational, which promoted their industry and their technology). All in all I don't consider Matt's idea hair-brained at all, but merely a return to a more rational time when the FCC's mandate was to simply serve the nation's spectrum needs (rather than serving the Treasury Dept). Rich - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale > Although I see your point, how would it be inforced? When they didn't make > quota, do the ones that did get installed jsut get shut off when spectrum > gets returned. > Allocating spectrum based on empty promises is not good practice either. > What they aught to do is have the selling price and give a discount in the > form of rebates at time quotas are met. > The problem with charging based on number's served is that spectrum is not > necessarilly going to be used for a volume market, other reasons may be > jsut as valuable. > For example public safety may serve fewer people but have just a value to > consumer well being. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:23 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTV, EchoStar reduce bidding in wireless sale > > >> Imagine what woul
Re: [WISPA] Anyone had success with SR9 and Trango CPEs at 900Mhz? [ed: s/Trango/Tranzeo?]
Yes, I meant Tranzeo! On 8/16/06, Dylan Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Don't remember anything about Trango and SR9; maybe you're thinking Tranzeo. On 8/16/06, rabbtux rabbtux <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Read here awhile back that a new Trango 900Mhz cpe used the same > Atheros chipset that the SR9 uses. Has anyone tracked this down? Is > it a no-go? > > Thanks > marshall > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Dylan Oliver Primaverity, LLC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] roll your own radios..
It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Travis, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? The WAR board has faster CPU, and can push the full 35 mbps. The solution needed to be a fully outdoor mountable system. You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Actually not at the time I quotes. It was a big undersight on my part, I should have know based on our many list debates from months earlier. From previous testing months earlier I understood that I could get 14-15Mbps second with one CM9 at 10 miles. I had Atheros capabilty on mind, and forgot about CPU need. So I thought that when I used Nstreme2 combining 2 CM9s or Turbo Mode or both I'd get double speed thus 30mb (I forgot Nstreme was for Full Duplex instead of channel combining when quoting, where was my head?) . What I learned two weeks ago in lab testing, preparing for the install, after quoting the customer, was that the bottleneck was the Mainboard CPU speed. When I realized my mistake, I called the customer and converted the quote to a Trango unit, which I thought should work best to meet spec. The big mistake I made was that I forgot all about WAR boards. The quote specificed True bridging, and at the time I did not realize that StarOS V3 supported True Bridging. I learned after the fact, that it does. It was an important client of mine, and I did not want to use something that I had not tested or used yet personally, So I ate the profit margin based on time constraints and maintaining professionalism not jerking the customer around with new solutions every day. The reason I was limited by Trango, is that Trango has a web presence and lists retail costs, which my customer will see when they inquire about what we are providing them, when I sell StarOS or Mikrotik it is an OEM solution, so they do not have a reference of what my solution is typically sold at, as its branded as our radio brand. I like Trango alot for my needs as an ISP. It gives me the remote troubleshooting tool and management features I need. But when I sell a link to a end user, they don;t need those same benefits. The OEM solution easilly met their need from a softwre perspective, if not more, with the added routing OS type features. My take on this is that for the reseller, OEM Branded WAR/StarOSV3 system (or Mikrotik within its speed capabilties) is the solutions that will allow integrators to make maximum profit margins. For example, I'd argue that for resale, it could pass traffic equivellent to the Alvarion BH100, and the $1000 solution could be sold for up to $7000 maximizing profit potential, or at least a couple $1000 markup. I'm not saying the more expensive main brand gear doesn;t have unique valuable features wirth buying the gear for, I'm jsut saying the unique feature of the WAR solution, is that it now has reached the speed capacity of the many high cost PtP solutions, (Redline, Orhtogon, Ceragon, Avlarion, Etc) and can compete on the criteria of speed. I usually do not make purchasing decissions on resale advantages, because I am usually a provider that buys product for my own use, and its not about the profit, its about the benefit of features to me as the user. But this case was a resale transaction that I did, and from a resale point of view, it solved the customer's problem, but it did not solve mine, which was to maximize profitabilty of the job. (of course I got labor fee, that helped). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Or
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Sorry, my mouse button keeps sticking, and making me send blank replies. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:26 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story I'm NOT reading this right when you combine "46 Mbps" and "900 mhz" in the same paragraph ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:30 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireles s/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Tom, The other issue regarding RB532 or StarOS on a WAR board is the lack of FCC certification. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? The WAR board has faster CPU, and can push the full 35 mbps. The solution needed to be a fully outdoor mountable system. You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Actually not at the time I quotes. It was a big undersight on my part, I should have know based on our many list debates from months earlier. From previous testing months earlier I understood that I could get 14-15Mbps second with one CM9 at 10 miles. I had Atheros capabilty on mind, and forgot about CPU need. So I thought that when I used Nstreme2 combining 2 CM9s or Turbo Mode or both I'd get double speed thus 30mb (I forgot Nstreme was for Full Duplex instead of channel combining when quoting, where was my head?) . What I learned two weeks ago in lab testing, preparing for the install, after quoting the customer, was that the bottleneck was the Mainboard CPU speed. When I realized my mistake, I called the customer and converted the quote to a Trango unit, which I thought should work best to meet spec. The big mistake I made was that I forgot all about WAR boards. The quote specificed True bridging, and at the time I did not realize that StarOS V3 supported True Bridging. I learned after the fact, that it does. It was an important client of mine, and I did not want to use something that I had not tested or used yet personally, So I ate the profit margin based on time constraints and maintaining professionalism not jerking the customer around with new solutions every day. The reason I was limited by Trango, is that Trango has a web presence and lists retail costs, which my customer will see when they inquire about what we are providing them, when I sell StarOS or Mikrotik it is an OEM solution, so they do not have a reference of what my solution is typically sold at, as its branded as our radio brand. I like Trango alot for my needs as an ISP. It gives me the remote troubleshooting tool and management features I need. But when I sell a link to a end user, they don;t need those same benefits. The OEM solution easilly met their need from a softwre perspective, if not more, with the added routing OS type features. My take on this is that for the reseller, OEM Branded WAR/StarOSV3 system (or Mikrotik within its speed capabilties) is the solutions that will allow integrators to make maximum profit margins. For example, I'd argue that for resale, it could pass traffic equivellent to the Alvarion BH100, and the $1000 solution could be sold for up to $7000 maximizing profit potential, or at least a couple $1000 markup. I'm not saying the more expensive main brand gear doesn;t have unique valuable features wirth buying the gear for, I'm jsut saying the unique feature of the WAR solution, is that it now has reached the speed capacity of the many high cost PtP solutions, (Redline, Orhtogon, Ceragon, Avlarion, Etc) and can compete on the criteria of speed. I usually do not make purchasing decissions on resale advantages, because I am usually a provider that buys product for my own use, and its not about the profit, its about the benefit of features to me as the user. But this case was a resale transaction that I did, and from a resale point of view, it solved the customer's problem, but it did not solve mine, which was to maximize profitabilty of the job. (of course I got labor fee, that helped). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
John is 100% accurate. Also, with respect to using your own antenna, even with that new relaxation of the rules, it ONLY applies to manufacturers, NOT operators. What is does is to enable manufacturers to self-certify additional antennas so long as the power is the same or less as the originally certified version AND the beam pattern is fundamentally similar. This rule does NOT permit operators to use whatever antennas they like. As always, I know from 1st hand direct questioning of those FCC staffers who wrote the rule revision. This is not hearsay, my assumption or my interpretation. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: > It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off > the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what > are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in > production? Thanks for the education > > > > Chris > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Take note that there are different legalities based on wether you are manufacturering/ selling a product versus using it for your own use on your property. And if its your customers propery versus yours. The only other advice that I have, is that if you are providing uncertified solutions, you better be darn sure it is a solution that would comply if the steps were taken, and you were ever asked to certify it. For example, If you installed 1000 uncertified systems that were jsut about the same, the only thing you'd need to do to correct the problem, is pay someone to certify the combination of products, for $10,000. Much more cost effective than pulling all your gear down and loosing customers. That was one of the scares with Mikrotik last month, when nobody would assume Routerboards would not be uncertifiable, but with a 48V PS, its uncertain if it would be able to. Hopefully, they are working to verify and fix the issue. There is a lot more flexibilty now, which allows us to use functonal equivellents, but someone is responsible for making that determination. Its the manufacturer, or the integrater claiming to be the manufacturer for the OEM product that is taking on the liabilty. One of the reasons I chose Trango for 95% of my network, is I started the business with the goal for eventual sale, and didn't want to take the liabilty of not having a legal system. Because I am not a attorney, I wont say more than that on this topic. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, IncIntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: chris cooper To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:05 PM Subject: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgSubscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wirelessArchives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Exactly. Which is why those two vendors need to give more for less. The benefit has to be so great, that its worth taking the chance to use it. With the newer more flexible rules though, its much safer to install than 2 years ago, giving us more selection of antenna brands. And just because uncertified gear is used, doesn't mean that its not certifiable. Its important that a consistent product line is used, that would meet the certification, if ever required to get certified. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, The other issue regarding RB532 or StarOS on a WAR board is the lack of FCC certification. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Travis, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? The WAR board has faster CPU, and can push the full 35 mbps. The solution needed to be a fully outdoor mountable system. You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Actually not at the time I quotes. It was a big undersight on my part, I should have know based on our many list debates from months earlier. From previous testing months earlier I understood that I could get 14-15Mbps second with one CM9 at 10 miles. I had Atheros capabilty on mind, and forgot about CPU need. So I thought that when I used Nstreme2 combining 2 CM9s or Turbo Mode or both I'd get double speed thus 30mb (I forgot Nstreme was for Full Duplex instead of channel combining when quoting, where was my head?) . What I learned two weeks ago in lab testing, preparing for the install, after quoting the customer, was that the bottleneck was the Mainboard CPU speed. When I realized my mistake, I called the customer and converted the quote to a Trango unit, which I thought should work best to meet spec. The big mistake I made was that I forgot all about WAR boards. The quote specificed True bridging, and at the time I did not realize that StarOS V3 supported True Bridging. I learned after the fact, that it does. It was an important client of mine, and I did not want to use something that I had not tested or used yet personally, So I ate the profit margin based on time constraints and maintaining professionalism not jerking the customer around with new solutions every day. The reason I was limited by Trango, is that Trango has a web presence and lists retail costs, which my customer will see when they inquire about what we are providing them, when I sell StarOS or Mikrotik it is an OEM solution, so they do not have a reference of what my solution is typically sold at, as its branded as our radio brand. I like Trango alot for my needs as an ISP. It gives me the remote troubleshooting tool and management features I need. But when I sell a link to a end user, they don;t need those same benefits. The OEM solution easilly met their need from a softwre perspective, if not more, with the added routing OS type features. My take on this is that for the reseller, OEM Branded WAR/StarOSV3 system (or Mikrotik within its speed capabilties) is the solutions that will allow integrators to make maximum profit margins. For example, I'd argue that for resale, it could pass traffic equivellent to the Alvarion BH100, and the $1000 solution could be sold for up to $7000 maximizing profit potential, or at least a couple $1000 markup. I'm not saying the more expensive main brand gear doesn;t have unique valuable features wirth buying the gear for, I'm jsut saying the unique feature of the WAR solution, is that it now has reached the speed capacity of the many high cost PtP solutions, (Redline, Orhtogon, Ceragon, Avlarion, Etc) and can compete on the criteria of speed. I usually do not make purchasing decissions on resale advantages, because I am usually a provider that buys product for my own use, and its not about the profit, its about the benefit of features to me as the user. But this case was a resale transaction that I did, and from a resale point of view, it solved the customer's problem, but it did not solve mine, which was to maximize profitabilty of the job. (of course I got labor fee, that helped). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:28 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, How would the WAR/V3 solution have worked any better than the Routerboard 532 solution? You had to know that the RB532 would only do about 20Mbps of actual throughput, so why would you quote that to begin with? Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed instal
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Patrick, Not exactly. What you said is mostly true, and to the letter of the original text, but there are added flexibilties. It doesn't need to be the antenna that the manufacturer actually sells. For example, if the manufacturer OEMed a MTI antenna for certification, operators can now use the functional MTI antenna bought direct. Also in face to face meetings, even though not the written text, we asked if operators could take responsibilty for determining the functional equivellent. They responded that the reason the Manufacturers were required to be the one, is that there had to be someone to take responsibilty, where it was inforcable to comply. It was a grey area, but FCC staff stated that if the operator took responsibility, it could be feasible that it was allowed for the Operator to make the substitution. The arguement is as integrators we have the abilty to get certifications just like Manufacturers. So really the letter of the law was that who ever got the gear certified originally, would ahve the abilty to make the modifications of whats considered functional equivellent. What this meant was that if an Operator isntalled an uncertifed network, but used gear that could be certified, meaning making qualified decisions, it was within the Operators power to correct the violation, by getting the components certified. Although the politically correct method would be to certify the gear combination a head of time. But my point is its not just the manufacturer that has the master decission. With that said, its rare that a operator would want to go through the cost of certification, when the manufacturer already did, if the manufacturer now also had cost effective ways to make decissions on what gear is acceptable to use under the certification, and manufacturers had fair pricing on antenna gear, to take away the motive for someone to self certify. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. John is 100% accurate. Also, with respect to using your own antenna, even with that new relaxation of the rules, it ONLY applies to manufacturers, NOT operators. What is does is to enable manufacturers to self-certify additional antennas so long as the power is the same or less as the originally certified version AND the beam pattern is fundamentally similar. This rule does NOT permit operators to use whatever antennas they like. As always, I know from 1st hand direct questioning of those FCC staffers who wrote the rule revision. This is not hearsay, my assumption or my interpretation. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
For sure. It has nothing to do with how the antenna is sold or sourced. What is clear however is that as operators, you do not have the choice. Such flexibility is ONLY given to the manufacturers. I was in the room where Marlon pressed them on this point hard and they would not bend. For the FCC, they still refused to open what they see as a Pandora's Box in terms of letting operators make their own choices in terms of antennas. We all were a bit surprised by this, though I understand their issue. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, Not exactly. What you said is mostly true, and to the letter of the original text, but there are added flexibilties. It doesn't need to be the antenna that the manufacturer actually sells. For example, if the manufacturer OEMed a MTI antenna for certification, operators can now use the functional MTI antenna bought direct. Also in face to face meetings, even though not the written text, we asked if operators could take responsibilty for determining the functional equivellent. They responded that the reason the Manufacturers were required to be the one, is that there had to be someone to take responsibilty, where it was inforcable to comply. It was a grey area, but FCC staff stated that if the operator took responsibility, it could be feasible that it was allowed for the Operator to make the substitution. The arguement is as integrators we have the abilty to get certifications just like Manufacturers. So really the letter of the law was that who ever got the gear certified originally, would ahve the abilty to make the modifications of whats considered functional equivellent. What this meant was that if an Operator isntalled an uncertifed network, but used gear that could be certified, meaning making qualified decisions, it was within the Operators power to correct the violation, by getting the components certified. Although the politically correct method would be to certify the gear combination a head of time. But my point is its not just the manufacturer that has the master decission. With that said, its rare that a operator would want to go through the cost of certification, when the manufacturer already did, if the manufacturer now also had cost effective ways to make decissions on what gear is acceptable to use under the certification, and manufacturers had fair pricing on antenna gear, to take away the motive for someone to self certify. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:29 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > John is 100% accurate. Also, with respect to using your own antenna, even > with that new relaxation of the rules, it ONLY applies to manufacturers, > NOT > operators. What is does is to enable manufacturers to self-certify > additional antennas so long as the power is the same or less as the > originally certified version AND the beam pattern is fundamentally > similar. > > This rule does NOT permit operators to use whatever antennas they like. > > As always, I know from 1st hand direct questioning of those FCC staffers > who > wrote the rule revision. This is not hearsay, my assumption or my > interpretation. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Scrivner > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:31 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > > The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a > certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet > the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think > that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost > certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC > enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules > is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you > are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another > common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the > general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and > further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. > > Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see > FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators > to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step > should be that manufacturers c
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: > John, > > Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of > certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step > up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be > the perfect organization to perform this role. > > We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs > anyone has used and been satisfied with. > > OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or > used? > jack > > > John Scrivner wrote: > >> The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be >> a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to >> meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many >> think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are >> almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass >> FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP >> rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice >> if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is >> legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of >> thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. >> This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry >> to mature. >> >> Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to >> see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for >> operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. >> Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with >> commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release >> a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they >> sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification >> is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by >> all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents >> manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good >> time to toot your horn. >> >> I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP >> systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the >> cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. >> Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of >> course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each >> person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future >> but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not >> take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding >> that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we >> should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry >> association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative >> efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct >> course of action. >> Scriv >> >> >> chris cooper wrote: >> >>> It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off >>> the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what >>> are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in >>> production? Thanks for the education >>> >>> >>> >>> Chris >>> > -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(191). This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses(42). *
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
No need to push manufactures when you can just not buy their product. Why would you want to take the business risk of not buying a certified radio? I mean Trango sells radios plenty cheap and they're certified. Canopy is also cheap and also certified. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
All, $0.02: A while back there was a discussion (The FCC even included it in the latest dialog about part 15, I think) about the possibility of a person becoming certified to work with unlicensed equipment. If this afforded a person a real advantage (say being able to mix and match components as long as you do the math and take measurements, etc) why wasn't it pursued? *Marlon,* I think you commented about this a few months back... I would jump at the chance of becoming an "Unlicensed Tech." and having freedom to build exactly what I need. As far as the Antenna/radio-roll-your-own thing: doesn't the antenna still have to appear in the manual issued by the manufacturer of the radio as an acceptable replacement. I've been told by some WISPS that have spoken with the FCC that it does... Jason Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Patrick, From my perspective, Alvarion HAS set a pretty high standard in terms of marketing certified equipment. Can you research the certification labs that Alvarion has used and give us the names of those labs so that others will know where to go for reliable certification services? Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Matt, I agree with John's suggestion that we need to push manufacturers to certify. We could request that manufacturers indicate the certification status of their equipment on their websites, their spec sheets, and their advertising material. We could even create the artwork and make available to the industry a "Part 15 FCC-Certified Equipment" logo at no charge. You ask - "Why would we need to push manufacturers when a WISP could just NOT buy a non-certified product"? Because half of the WISPs out there don't even realize that certification is required by law. WISPA can perform a valuable public service by simply providing knowledge and education for the WISP community and also by facilitating the means for manufacturers to get the certification accomplished (publishing the list of certification labs). The alternative is for each of us to completely ignore the issue, which is the same as us saying (pick your favorite, vote for all the apply) 1. "Laws are made to be broken" 2. "Laws are made to be ignored" 2. "Laws are for other people, not for me" 3. "Ignorance of the law is my excuse for breaking the law" 4. "If nobody enforces it, it's not a law" 5. "Jack, Joe, John, Jim, James, and Jean aren't following the law so why should I" 6. . Our role is not enforcement, but education and leadership. By our actions, we can benefit WISPs, manufacturers, and WISP customers. By playing this role responsibly, our industry gains not just greater freedom from interference but greater credibility with the public, the Congress, the news media, and the FCC. jack Matt Liotta wrote: No need to push manufactures when you can just not buy their product. Why would you want to take the business risk of not buying a certified radio? I mean Trango sells radios plenty cheap and they're certified. Canopy is also cheap and also certified. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law re
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
That's easy. From the FCC site: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearchResult.cfm And here is the search location: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, From my perspective, Alvarion HAS set a pretty high standard in terms of marketing certified equipment. Can you research the certification labs that Alvarion has used and give us the names of those labs so that others will know where to go for reliable certification services? Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: > We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe > we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Scrivner > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > > This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing > of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. > Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more > cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would > make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all > insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. > Scriv > > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > >>John, >> >>Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of >>certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step >>up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be >>the perfect organization to perform this role. >> >>We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs >>anyone has used and been satisfied with. >> >>OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or >>used? >> jack >> >> >>John Scrivner wrote: >> >> >>>The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be >>>a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to >>>meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many >>>think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are >>>almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass >>>FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP >>>rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice >>>if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is >>>legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of >>>thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. >>>This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry >>>to mature. >>> >>>Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to >>>see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for >>>operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. >>>Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with >>>commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release >>>a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they >>>sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification >>>is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by >>>all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents >>>manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good >>>time to toot your horn. >>> >>>I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP >>>systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the >>>cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. >>>Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of >>>course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each >>>person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future >>>but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not >>>take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding >>>that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we >>>should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry >>>association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative >>>efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct >>>course of action. >>>Scriv >>> >>> >>>chris cooper wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FC
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Disregard the first link. Instead, just type U.S. in the country field and hit enter within the search page. You will pull up 149 labs. WISPA should not re-create the wheel. The FCC site has a wealth of great info and WISPA should simply link to it. It will also get WISPs in the habit of going to the FCC site (and using the WISPA site as another resource for them. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:37 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. That's easy. From the FCC site: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearchResult.cfm And here is the search location: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, From my perspective, Alvarion HAS set a pretty high standard in terms of marketing certified equipment. Can you research the certification labs that Alvarion has used and give us the names of those labs so that others will know where to go for reliable certification services? Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: > We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe > we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John Scrivner > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > > This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing > of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. > Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more > cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would > make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all > insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. > Scriv > > > > Jack Unger wrote: > > >>John, >> >>Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of >>certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step >>up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be >>the perfect organization to perform this role. >> >>We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs >>anyone has used and been satisfied with. >> >>OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or >>used? >> jack >> >> >>John Scrivner wrote: >> >> >>>The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be >>>a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to >>>meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many >>>think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are >>>almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass >>>FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP >>>rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice >>>if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is >>>legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of >>>thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. >>>This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry >>>to mature. >>> >>>Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to >>>see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for >>>operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. >>>Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with >>>commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release >>>a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they >>>sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification >>>is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by >>>all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents >>>manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good >>>time to toot your horn. >>> >>>I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP >>>systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the >>>cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. >>>Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of >>>course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each >>>person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the fu
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Jack Unger wrote: You ask - "Why would we need to push manufacturers when a WISP could just NOT buy a non-certified product"? Because half of the WISPs out there don't even realize that certification is required by law. WISPA can perform a valuable public service by simply providing knowledge and education for the WISP community and also by facilitating the means for manufacturers to get the certification accomplished (publishing the list of certification labs). First of all, there is no way our small group is going to influence manufactures of non-certified gear. We already don't buy from those manufactures, so it is not impacting their sales. Second, if WISPs don't know that certification is a requirement then why would certified gear appeal to them? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Tom, Real basic question: Can you explain the comment on wishing to have the "War/V3 solution"? What would War/V3 have given you? Mario Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Patrick - Thank you. Patrick Leary wrote: That's easy. From the FCC site: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearchResult.cfm The above link didn't work for me. And here is the search location: https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm This link is great! I put CA (California) and "Accredited" into the search criteria and the FCC site returned 30 hits for certification labs in CA. Fantastic! I would propose that WISPA include this FCC link on the new website. jack Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, From my perspective, Alvarion HAS set a pretty high standard in terms of marketing certified equipment. Can you research the certification labs that Alvarion has used and give us the names of those labs so that others will know where to go for reliable certification services? Thanks, jack Patrick Leary wrote: We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Matt, My response to your questions are inline, below. jack Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: You ask - "Why would we need to push manufacturers when a WISP could just NOT buy a non-certified product"? Because half of the WISPs out there don't even realize that certification is required by law. WISPA can perform a valuable public service by simply providing knowledge and education for the WISP community and also by facilitating the means for manufacturers to get the certification accomplished (publishing the list of certification labs). First of all, there is no way our small group is going to influence manufactures of non-certified gear. We already don't buy from those manufactures, so it is not impacting their sales. First, our "small group" can certainly influence manufacturers. The voice of an industry trade organization (which is what we are) carries a lot of weight if we simply decide to use that voice to speak out. Only if we say nothing, will our voice carry no weight. In that case, we might as well cease to exist. Second, I'd venture a guess that many WISPA members DO sometimes buy non-certified equipment. We can't make a blanket statement that all WISPA members buy only certified equipment. Even if it were true that all WISPA members bought only certified equipment (and I'll bet you a steak dinner that it's not true) what about all the other WISPs and WISP-industry providers who are on our mailing lists and who are influenced by what we say and do? Is it WISPA's job to stand up for what's legal and what's right or should WISPA just say "Forget it, we don't care, it's not our job, and we're too busy". Article IV of the WISPA Code of Ethics says: " ARTICLE IV We will strive to broaden public understanding and enhance public regard and confidence in our Industry " Educating our industry and the public is certainly in keeping with our Charter. Second, if WISPs don't know that certification is a requirement then why would certified gear appeal to them? I submit that it's part of our job to educate the industry. If WISPs don't know that certification is a requirement, then IT'S OUR JOB to help them learn. Once they know the laws of the industry that they are joining then they will want to buy certified equipment. By the way, who would start a business in an industry and then not want to know the laws that regulate that industry? How far would I get (and how smart would I be) if I opened a new restaurant in your neighborhood but I didn't stop long enough to learn about the sanitation laws in your city? Would you feel confident bringing your new girlfriend to my restaurant on Friday night? jack -Matt -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
I was in the room where Marlon pressed them on this point hard and they would not bend. http://www.rapiddsl.net/latest_news/FccVisitOct2004.htm Thats right, you were there Patrick. (PS. Your wherever Wireless goes, DSL follows speach rocked!) And you are right, Marlon was pressing hard, and they were not bending on giving operator's control (the pandora's box) in most of the meeting. And the original intent was to make it easier and more cost effective for manufacturers to add complete product lines under their existing certifications. But towards the end, I felt a little bend. The relevant part is why they didn't want to bend. What would make it a Pandora's box? It was accountabilty and the ease of breaking the rules. Its the reason they also refused to bend on the unique connector rule. (Technically, which would make every N connector based radio an uncertifiable system, if they lived to the letter of their rules.). Where it was getting grey, is questions were asked like, what if What makes it a grey area are things like, What is the definition of "Manufacturer" ? Sure its clear that Alvarion is the Manufacturer of a BH40 and holds the certification of that radio platform, and the responsible party, and Alvarion is appropriate to decide what is and isn't and equivellent product to meet certification under its certification. I don't deny that. But who is the manufacturer of an uncertified system? Atheros? WRAP? The Operator? Who is responsible to certify the system? Its not spare parts manufacturers. The line of who is a manufacturer, who is a provider, and who is a reseller is getting blurred. And what qualifies as a method of a Manufacturer giving approval of what's certifyable? If an operator calls a Manufacturer and asks is this PacWireless dish of the same power or less as the originally certified version AND the beam pattern is fundamentally similar, and they say yes, is the operator free to proceed? Who is the authoritary person from the manufacturer able to do so? And what proof needs to be given that such permission was granted? And if you violate, what are the penalties if you comply after the fact? Details were left out. It all boils down to someone is going to be held responsible, when output of a system violates allowable specfications. And the way the rule is written, they have the abilty to hold people accountable. But the intent was not to prevent innovation by responsible WISPs. The general census was, which will never be found in print, was if its in legal limits, the FCC police aint comming to knock on your door. But the second someone complains, and you weren't within specification, they were comming after you. What I will say, is I appreciate Alvarions effort to certify a variety of antennas and make available list of certified antenna lines for their products, which I beleive they have, so WISPs that use the Product don't have to worry about certification and compliance issues. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. For sure. It has nothing to do with how the antenna is sold or sourced. What is clear however is that as operators, you do not have the choice. Such flexibility is ONLY given to the manufacturers. I was in the room where Marlon pressed them on this point hard and they would not bend. For the FCC, they still refused to open what they see as a Pandora's Box in terms of letting operators make their own choices in terms of antennas. We all were a bit surprised by this, though I understand their issue. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, Not exactly. What you said is mostly true, and to the letter of the original text, but there are added flexibilties. It doesn't need to be the antenna that the manufacturer actually sells. For example, if the manufacturer OEMed a MTI antenna for certification, operators can now use the functional MTI antenna bought direct. Also in face to face meetings, even though not the written text, we asked if operators could take responsibilty for determining the functional equivellent. They responded that the reason the Manufacturers were required to be the one, is that there had to be someone to take responsibilty, where it was inforcable to comply. It was a grey area, but FCC staff stated that if the operator took responsibility, it could be feasible that it was allowed for the Operator to make the substitution. The arguement is as integrators we have the abilty to get certif
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Jack Unger wrote: First, our "small group" can certainly influence manufacturers. The voice of an industry trade organization (which is what we are) carries a lot of weight if we simply decide to use that voice to speak out. Only if we say nothing, will our voice carry no weight. In that case, we might as well cease to exist. We can influence manufacturers by explaining what we want them to produce and if they produce it we will buy it. Take for example the whole thread on MTU size, which seemed to get at least one manufacture to take notice. That however is because they could actually lose sales if they don't pay attention to our needs. I personally don't see any benefit provided by current non-certified gear, so its not like I will start buying the gear if it was certified. Therefore, what incentive would such a manufacture have knowing my position? I guess a better question is what benefit does non-certified gear have over certified gear? I personally don't see the benefit, so why waste time trying to convince the manufacture to certify it? Second, I'd venture a guess that many WISPA members DO sometimes buy non-certified equipment. We can't make a blanket statement that all WISPA members buy only certified equipment. Even if it were true that all WISPA members bought only certified equipment (and I'll bet you a steak dinner that it's not true) what about all the other WISPs and WISP-industry providers who are on our mailing lists and who are influenced by what we say and do? Is it WISPA's job to stand up for what's legal and what's right or should WISPA just say "Forget it, we don't care, it's not our job, and we're too busy". I am all for standing up for what is legal, but what does that mean in practical terms for WISPA? I submit that it's part of our job to educate the industry. If WISPs don't know that certification is a requirement, then IT'S OUR JOB to help them learn. Once they know the laws of the industry that they are joining then they will want to buy certified equipment. Why is it our job? By the way, who would start a business in an industry and then not want to know the laws that regulate that industry? How far would I get (and how smart would I be) if I opened a new restaurant in your neighborhood but I didn't stop long enough to learn about the sanitation laws in your city? Would you feel confident bringing your new girlfriend to my restaurant on Friday night? Those are interesting questions that don't seem to apply to my position. A more analogical question would be should the other restaurants help you learn what you are unwilling to do on your own? How long will a business survive with such an attitude? Why not just wait for them to die on their own? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Because its certified system, not certified radio. Many of the manufacturers do not provide antennas that are always available. Just this month, Trangos DSS dishes were not available, it was buy your own, or don't earn revenue for a month. Or use a Andrews 3 ft dish with better RF characteristics for avoiding interference with/to others, apposed to the inconsistent certified brand that have higher wind load and higher price. Sometimes the more responsible thing to do is to use the better choice, even if uncertified. Because times change quick, and manufactuers do not always keep up. If more manufacturers tested common antennas more quickly, this problem/thread would not exist. But why should the manufacturer eat the cost to test antenna manufacturer's products, why not antenna manufacturers test with the radios? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. No need to push manufactures when you can just not buy their product. Why would you want to take the business risk of not buying a certified radio? I mean Trango sells radios plenty cheap and they're certified. Canopy is also cheap and also certified. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn. I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding that members do anything but I will say, as President of WISPA, we should all try to follow the law regarding this industry. No industry association could expect to have impact in policy and legislative efforts if they took the stand that shirking the law is a correct course of action. Scriv chris cooper wrote: It sounds like several of you here build your own radios and use off the shelf antennas. So if I buy a board, cards and an antenna what are my obligations to FCC as far as having a certified system in production? Thanks for the education Chris -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsu
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Jack, One thing that is undisputable, is that Manufacturers have been given the power to make their list of equivellent products that would be certified and now its super cheap for them to do it with the relaxed rules. I agree, the best method to solve this problem is to encourage our manufacturers to certiy more antennas, or authorize their use as acceptible equivellent replacements. I also believe educating the public on the best way to certify is a great idea, and one that has been around for a few years but not yet followed through on. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Matt, I agree with John's suggestion that we need to push manufacturers to certify. We could request that manufacturers indicate the certification status of their equipment on their websites, their spec sheets, and their advertising material. We could even create the artwork and make available to the industry a "Part 15 FCC-Certified Equipment" logo at no charge. You ask - "Why would we need to push manufacturers when a WISP could just NOT buy a non-certified product"? Because half of the WISPs out there don't even realize that certification is required by law. WISPA can perform a valuable public service by simply providing knowledge and education for the WISP community and also by facilitating the means for manufacturers to get the certification accomplished (publishing the list of certification labs). The alternative is for each of us to completely ignore the issue, which is the same as us saying (pick your favorite, vote for all the apply) 1. "Laws are made to be broken" 2. "Laws are made to be ignored" 2. "Laws are for other people, not for me" 3. "Ignorance of the law is my excuse for breaking the law" 4. "If nobody enforces it, it's not a law" 5. "Jack, Joe, John, Jim, James, and Jean aren't following the law so why should I" 6. . Our role is not enforcement, but education and leadership. By our actions, we can benefit WISPs, manufacturers, and WISP customers. By playing this role responsibly, our industry gains not just greater freedom from interference but greater credibility with the public, the Congress, the news media, and the FCC. jack Matt Liotta wrote: No need to push manufactures when you can just not buy their product. Why would you want to take the business risk of not buying a certified radio? I mean Trango sells radios plenty cheap and they're certified. Canopy is also cheap and also certified. -Matt John Scrivner wrote: This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. Scriv Jack Unger wrote: John, Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be the perfect organization to perform this role. We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs anyone has used and been satisfied with. OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or used? jack John Scrivner wrote: The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all m
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
One reason the non certified manufacturers are not certifying their equipment is because of the changes that take place in such short time periods. To certify a system, the radio card, the antenna AND "the board" which drives the card has to be certified together as a complete system. The roll your own non certified equipment changes very fast. It's always a newer faster board or a newer better card. Just a few months ago the CM9 was the rage of Atheros, now seems like the WLMG54 is popular. couple months ago wraps were the ticket and now it's war boards.. I don't think it's likely to see too many certifying systems under these conditions. But I'm sure they could easily be certified. it just takes money. George Matt Liotta wrote: Jack Unger wrote: First, our "small group" can certainly influence manufacturers. The voice of an industry trade organization (which is what we are) carries a lot of weight if we simply decide to use that voice to speak out. Only if we say nothing, will our voice carry no weight. In that case, we might as well cease to exist. We can influence manufacturers by explaining what we want them to produce and if they produce it we will buy it. Take for example the whole thread on MTU size, which seemed to get at least one manufacture to take notice. That however is because they could actually lose sales if they don't pay attention to our needs. I personally don't see any benefit provided by current non-certified gear, so its not like I will start buying the gear if it was certified. Therefore, what incentive would such a manufacture have knowing my position? I guess a better question is what benefit does non-certified gear have over certified gear? I personally don't see the benefit, so why waste time trying to convince the manufacture to certify it? Second, I'd venture a guess that many WISPA members DO sometimes buy non-certified equipment. We can't make a blanket statement that all WISPA members buy only certified equipment. Even if it were true that all WISPA members bought only certified equipment (and I'll bet you a steak dinner that it's not true) what about all the other WISPs and WISP-industry providers who are on our mailing lists and who are influenced by what we say and do? Is it WISPA's job to stand up for what's legal and what's right or should WISPA just say "Forget it, we don't care, it's not our job, and we're too busy". I am all for standing up for what is legal, but what does that mean in practical terms for WISPA? I submit that it's part of our job to educate the industry. If WISPs don't know that certification is a requirement, then IT'S OUR JOB to help them learn. Once they know the laws of the industry that they are joining then they will want to buy certified equipment. Why is it our job? By the way, who would start a business in an industry and then not want to know the laws that regulate that industry? How far would I get (and how smart would I be) if I opened a new restaurant in your neighborhood but I didn't stop long enough to learn about the sanitation laws in your city? Would you feel confident bringing your new girlfriend to my restaurant on Friday night? Those are interesting questions that don't seem to apply to my position. A more analogical question would be should the other restaurants help you learn what you are unwilling to do on your own? How long will a business survive with such an attitude? Why not just wait for them to die on their own? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Hi Tom, I remember our nice little seafood feast afterward too (is George on the WISPA list also?). As I recall, the conversation revolved around certified gear. The rules change they made did not include or cover uncertified systems, because I would assume, by definition, they do not exist as part of the legal process. In other words, the FCC was not trying to make life of law breakers even easier. They were trying to improve the flexibility so manufacturers could be more responsive to customer needs by getting more antenna choices included within the manufacturers master system certification. Basically, all they did was relax a little the existing "permissive change" rules. I believe the FCC was reluctant to give operators carte blanche, because it would be a strain on resources to track accountability and enforcement. Reigning in a few manufacturers who have major incentive to follow the rules is a lot different than trying to keep track of thousands of WISPs, many already flying under the radar (not filing form 477, etc.) AND many of whom who have already shown a massive propensity to ignore -- willfully or ignorantly -- the rules as they are. Use whatever clichés you want -- "asking the fox to guard the hen house," "giving the inmates the keys to the asylum,"...they all apply. I think you have to acknowledge that the abuse is rampant and one of the only reasons it is less rampant now is that so many systems come integrated with antennas, PoE, and high power (internal integrated amps). >From the vendors standpoint, I understand the FCC position and I also understand the quality (and legal) WISPs position. I would like to see an independent body that could provide WISP technician certification that the FCC could accept (and hold accountable), much like a PE needs to sign off on certain design documents in many mechanical fields. I envisioned such a thing a few years ago, using the BICSII RCDD as the model. Anyway, also a vendor I am relieved too that operators cannot make their own choices in the sense of the nightmare this would create for both system performance (e.g. MAJOR tech support costs and head aches) and warranty issues. You cannot fathom the massive costs we'd incur as every WISP making its own antenna choice came to us about performance, capacity, and coverage issues for which the antenna plays such a key role. How could we answer questions? How could we assert performance specs? How could we predict coverage and capacity? How could we advise about co-location issues? Etc. ad nauseum. Let me ask you this: would you willingly warranty and support your end user's end-to-end experience across your network from the desktops to the Internet while also permitting the user to implement whatever router, switch, etc. he/she wanted? Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > I was in the room where Marlon pressed them on this point hard and they > would not bend. http://www.rapiddsl.net/latest_news/FccVisitOct2004.htm Thats right, you were there Patrick. (PS. Your wherever Wireless goes, DSL follows speach rocked!) And you are right, Marlon was pressing hard, and they were not bending on giving operator's control (the pandora's box) in most of the meeting. And the original intent was to make it easier and more cost effective for manufacturers to add complete product lines under their existing certifications. But towards the end, I felt a little bend. The relevant part is why they didn't want to bend. What would make it a Pandora's box? It was accountabilty and the ease of breaking the rules. Its the reason they also refused to bend on the unique connector rule. (Technically, which would make every N connector based radio an uncertifiable system, if they lived to the letter of their rules.). Where it was getting grey, is questions were asked like, what if What makes it a grey area are things like, What is the definition of "Manufacturer" ? Sure its clear that Alvarion is the Manufacturer of a BH40 and holds the certification of that radio platform, and the responsible party, and Alvarion is appropriate to decide what is and isn't and equivellent product to meet certification under its certification. I don't deny that. But who is the manufacturer of an uncertified system? Atheros? WRAP? The Operator? Who is responsible to certify the system? Its not spare parts manufacturers. The line of who is a manufacturer, who is a provider, and who is a reseller is getting blurred. And what qualifies as a method of a Manufacturer giving approval of what's certifyable? If an operator calls a Manufacturer and asks is this PacWireless dish of the same power or less as the originally certified version AND the beam pattern
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
The WAR/V3 would have given me profit. I probably would have only got 35mbps instead of the 45mbps, but the specs of job was 30 mbps. $3000-$1000 means I'd have $2000 in my pocket, and today for lunch I'd be eating steak instead of canned Tuna. As stated before, its not about what is the best product, its about what meets spec. And as much as I like to support Trango, and as much as I like their gear, I'm not on their payroll. The customer was buying my reputation, not the manufacturers, so I had the option to put anything there, that I wanted and would stand behind that met specification. But I didn't mean to dwell on that point, this thread was meant to praise the top performance that I got out of the Trango unit. I never got the full 45 mbps out of their unit before, and it did it through a pine tree. I am always pleased when expectations have been exceeded. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Mario Pommier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, Real basic question: Can you explain the comment on wishing to have the "War/V3 solution"? What would War/V3 have given you? Mario Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Patrick, Man, you coughed those URLs up pretty fast. Thanks for your participation in this list, you always have something educational, and you share your knowledge openly. Glsd you decided to come back. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]>-Original Message->From: Patrick Leary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 05:37 PM>To: ''WISPA General List''>Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..>>That's easy. From the FCC site:>https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearchResult.cfm>>And here is the search location:>https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm>>>Patrick Leary>AVP Marketing>Alvarion, Inc.>o: 650.314.2628>c: 760.580.0080>Vonage: 650.641.1243>>-Original Message->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On>Behalf Of Jack Unger>Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM>To: WISPA General List>Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..>>Patrick,>> From my perspective, Alvarion HAS set a pretty high standard in terms >of marketing certified equipment. Can you research the certification >labs that Alvarion has used and give us the names of those labs so that >others will know where to go for reliable certification services?>>Thanks,> jack>>>Patrick Leary wrote:>> We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe>> we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility.>> >> Patrick Leary>> AVP Marketing>> Alvarion, Inc.>> o: 650.314.2628>> c: 760.580.0080>> Vonage: 650.641.1243>> >> -Original Message->> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On>> Behalf Of John Scrivner>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM>> To: WISPA General List>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..>> >> This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing >> of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. >> Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more >> cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would >> make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all >> insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible.>> Scriv>> >> >> >> Jack Unger wrote:>> >> >>>John,>>Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of >>>certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step >>>up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be >>>the perfect organization to perform this role.>>We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs >>>anyone has used and been satisfied with.>>OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or >>>used?>>> jack>John Scrivner wrote:>>The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature.Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then now would be a good time to toot your horn.I believe the day will likely come that the FCC will inspect WISP systems. It took them about 20 years to start cracking down on the cable television industry for signal leakage and other infractions. Something tells me this industry will not have to wait that long. Of course the decision to follow the rules is inevitably up to each person. I would like to think we all will be compliant in the future but this is an unrealistic goal I am sure if manufacturers do not take a leadership role in this effort. WISPA stops short of demanding
RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Ron, I did not know them offhand, but I have faith both in the wealth of info on the FCC’s site and in the ability of a well-phrased Google search to find the right page! Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Wallace Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 4:31 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Patrick, Man, you coughed those URLs up pretty fast. Thanks for your participation in this list, you always have something educational, and you share your knowledge openly. Glsd you decided to come back. Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson Dt. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517)547-8410 Mobile: (517)605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-Original Message- >From: Patrick Leary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 05:37 PM >To: ''WISPA General List'' >Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > >That's easy. From the FCC site: >https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearchResult.cfm > >And here is the search location: >https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm > > >Patrick Leary >AVP Marketing >Alvarion, Inc. >o: 650.314.2628 >c: 760.580.0080 >Vonage: 650.641.1243 > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Jack Unger >Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:35 PM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. > >Patrick, > > From my perspective, Alvarion HAS set a pretty high standard in terms >of marketing certified equipment. Can you research the certification >labs that Alvarion has used and give us the names of those labs so that >others will know where to go for reliable certification services? > >Thanks, > jack > > >Patrick Leary wrote: >> We have a pretty vigorous approved third party antenna list, but I believe >> we are somewhat of the exception in terms of this facility. >> >> Patrick Leary >> AVP Marketing >> Alvarion, Inc. >> o: 650.314.2628 >> c: 760.580.0080 >> Vonage: 650.641.1243 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of John Scrivner >> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:58 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. >> >> This sounds like a good idea. I am sure we could add a link to a listing >> of certification labs. We also need to push manufacturers to certify. >> Without some pressure from us the certification will just look like more >> cost with little to gain to manufacturers. Pressure from customers would >> make this more of a requirement than what it seems to be now. If we all >> insist on certs then the overall cost for this would be negligible. >> Scriv >> >> >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> >> >>>John, >>> >>>Should WISPA consider publishing on our website a list of >>>certification labs? It seems that our industry needs someone to step >>>up and take on a leadership role and WISPA seems (to me anyway) to be >>>the perfect organization to perform this role. >>> >>>We could start by simply polling our list members to see which labs >>>anyone has used and been satisfied with. >>> >>>OK, speak up guys (and gals). What lab or labs have you researched or >>>used? >>> jack >>> >>> >>>John Scrivner wrote: >>> >>> The rules state that any radio / antenna combination has to either be a certified system or that a substitute antenna used would have to meet the same specs as one used for certification in a system. Many think that this means "anything goes". The truth is that there are almost certainly a good bit of installed systems which would not pass FCC enforcement inspection. Many believe that following maximum EIRP rules is the only requirement. This is not so. It is a good practice if you are not following the rules but that does not mean it is legal. Another common belief is that "anything goes" is the rule of thumb due to the general lack of enforcement in unlicensed bands. This is unfortunate and further illustrates the need for our industry to mature. Part of this maturity process should start by operators demanding to see FCC certifications for the systems they buy. It is tough for operators to remain compliant when so few systems are certified. Another step should be that manufacturers certify their systems with commonly used antenna / radio configurations every time they release a product. Finally, distributors need to demand that all systems they sell meet certification requirements. The fact is that certification is not terribly costly or complicated and should be a step taken by all manufacturers and eventually all of us. If anyone here represents manufacturers who certify all their systems then
Re: [WISPA] roll your own radios..
Patrick, You are right on target, I agree with everything that you have just said. I would like to see an independent body that could provide WISP technician certification that the FCC could accept Great Idea. Let me ask you this: would you willingly warranty and support your end user's end-to-end experience across your network from the desktops to the Internet while also permitting the user to implement whatever router, switch, etc. he/she wanted? No, which is why I fully understand your view as manufacturer. But you are making the assumption that it is the manufacturer warranteeing and supporting the product. Just because Alvarion does a good job at it, doesn't mean it applies to all. Many WISPs do not rely on the support from their manufacturers, they instead decide to educate themselves, and take control of their own destiny, and need to have the abilty and freedom to support their clientel optimally. If I am the one doing the support, I need some control. Way to many times a WISP is held back in progress waiting and waiting on their manufacturers that do not come through or do not act with the same time table and priority as the WISP has done, and it has to do with who has the heavy cash invested that is getting wasted. When its the WISP's money at risk, and not the manufacturers, the manufacturer doesn't seem to rush. The day my choice of manufacturers outperform my time tables and beats me to the solution, I'll give in to them and follow suit to the manufacturer's suggested recommendations.FCC certification is important, but so is success, and this is a time to market industry. I have nothing but respect for the FCC, FCC power rules, and the vendors and providers that follow them, but I do not have a lot of respect for a sticker or for people that hold back an eager industry or waste my money. That comment was not directed at any specific manufacturer or regulating body. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 7:06 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] roll your own radios.. Hi Tom, I remember our nice little seafood feast afterward too (is George on the WISPA list also?). As I recall, the conversation revolved around certified gear. The rules change they made did not include or cover uncertified systems, because I would assume, by definition, they do not exist as part of the legal process. In other words, the FCC was not trying to make life of law breakers even easier. They were trying to improve the flexibility so manufacturers could be more responsive to customer needs by getting more antenna choices included within the manufacturers master system certification. Basically, all they did was relax a little the existing "permissive change" rules. I believe the FCC was reluctant to give operators carte blanche, because it would be a strain on resources to track accountability and enforcement. Reigning in a few manufacturers who have major incentive to follow the rules is a lot different than trying to keep track of thousands of WISPs, many already flying under the radar (not filing form 477, etc.) AND many of whom who have already shown a massive propensity to ignore -- willfully or ignorantly -- the rules as they are. Use whatever clichés you want -- "asking the fox to guard the hen house," "giving the inmates the keys to the asylum,"...they all apply. I think you have to acknowledge that the abuse is rampant and one of the only reasons it is less rampant now is that so many systems come integrated with antennas, PoE, and high power (internal integrated amps). From the vendors standpoint, I understand the FCC position and I also understand the quality (and legal) WISPs position. I would like to see an independent body that could provide WISP technician certification that the FCC could accept (and hold accountable), much like a PE needs to sign off on certain design documents in many mechanical fields. I envisioned such a thing a few years ago, using the BICSII RCDD as the model. Anyway, also a vendor I am relieved too that operators cannot make their own choices in the sense of the nightmare this would create for both system performance (e.g. MAJOR tech support costs and head aches) and warranty issues. You cannot fathom the massive costs we'd incur as every WISP making its own antenna choice came to us about performance, capacity, and coverage issues for which the antenna plays such a key role. How could we answer questions? How could we assert performance specs? How could we predict coverage and capacity? How could we advise about co-location issues? Etc. ad nauseum. Let me ask you this: would you willingly warranty and support your end user's end-to-end experience across your network from the desktops to the Internet while also permitting the user to implement whatever router, switch, etc. he/she
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
Tom, What did you use to test the actual throughput of the link? Even on the bench with two laptops I was never able to get more than 35Mbps of actual tcp throughput. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: The WAR/V3 would have given me profit. I probably would have only got 35mbps instead of the 45mbps, but the specs of job was 30 mbps. $3000-$1000 means I'd have $2000 in my pocket, and today for lunch I'd be eating steak instead of canned Tuna. As stated before, its not about what is the best product, its about what meets spec. And as much as I like to support Trango, and as much as I like their gear, I'm not on their payroll. The customer was buying my reputation, not the manufacturers, so I had the option to put anything there, that I wanted and would stand behind that met specification. But I didn't mean to dwell on that point, this thread was meant to praise the top performance that I got out of the Trango unit. I never got the full 45 mbps out of their unit before, and it did it through a pine tree. I am always pleased when expectations have been exceeded. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Mario Pommier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, Real basic question: Can you explain the comment on wishing to have the "War/V3 solution"? What would War/V3 have given you? Mario Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Trango help- New AP Firmware and 5800 SUs
In order to support ARQ and M5580 SUs, the Trango 5830AP must be upgraded to the newest Firmware v2.0r2. It states in the Firmware tech notes, that it support sellecting which CPEs are ARQ enabled by setting its SUID. 1-500 = ARQ CPE, 501-8190 no-ARQ. However, I have an exusting 5800 SU on the sector which already has an SUID under 500, and 5800 SUs do not support ARQ. My understanding is that ARQ feature effects both sending from AP and sending from SU, which is why ARQ needs to be enabled and disabled per SU on both AP and SU. My understanding is that 5800SUs can only have their SUID changed from onsite over the Ethernet port. So what happens, if I upgrade my 5830AP firmware, and leave the 5800SU in the unsupported state on SUID 10 (under 500)? Will it work OK? (Of course I know ARQ is unsupported on 5800, so ARQ feature won't exist on SU side). Can I do my radio upgrades tonight, and get around to changing the 5800 SUID at a later date? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story
I assume you are asking about Trango... Initially, we used the native trango tests, linktest 54 54, and got 45 mbps actual throughput. In addition, the technician used Iperf TCP from the two laptops plugged directly into the radios. I'm not sure the exact speed the tech got with Iperf, but he said it was within 1 mbps of the linktest. If you are asking about WAR/V3, never represented could do over 35 mbps. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, What did you use to test the actual throughput of the link? Even on the bench with two laptops I was never able to get more than 35Mbps of actual tcp throughput. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: The WAR/V3 would have given me profit. I probably would have only got 35mbps instead of the 45mbps, but the specs of job was 30 mbps. $3000-$1000 means I'd have $2000 in my pocket, and today for lunch I'd be eating steak instead of canned Tuna. As stated before, its not about what is the best product, its about what meets spec. And as much as I like to support Trango, and as much as I like their gear, I'm not on their payroll. The customer was buying my reputation, not the manufacturers, so I had the option to put anything there, that I wanted and would stand behind that met specification. But I didn't mean to dwell on that point, this thread was meant to praise the top performance that I got out of the Trango unit. I never got the full 45 mbps out of their unit before, and it did it through a pine tree. I am always pleased when expectations have been exceeded. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Mario Pommier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 5:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Atlas success story Tom, Real basic question: Can you explain the comment on wishing to have the "War/V3 solution"? What would War/V3 have given you? Mario Tom DeReggi wrote: Just completed install for client, that we quoted blind. The supposed Near-LOS partial freznel obstruction from a building, unfortuneately turned out to really mean NON-LOS through thick row of pine trees between buildings. Buildings were probably 600 yards away from each other. The Trango built-in antenna model installed pulled 46 mbps throughput and zero packet loss, perfect link. WooHoo. (I know short distance, but pine trees scare me, and often have unpredictable results even when doing 900Mhz). Only negative thing was Trango made the profit, allowing me only to make $200 markup, instead of the original $1500, that I had originally covered in my quote with a Routerboard 532 solution, that didn't get the 30mbps capacity requirement. My pocket book, wishes I had the War/V3 solution a week earlier :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Re: StarOS Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "cw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: [WISPA] Re: StarOS With the nazi administration currently in power, one should think twice before deciding someone shouldn't be allowed to say or write things. But, I must say this statement is like a Linux loon calling FreeBSD crap. - cw JohnnyO wrote: I was not interested in reading posts labled Routerboard 532 and Star-OS crap. If I were interested in Star-OS crap instead of Mikrotik, then I would look for posts labled Star-OS ! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ --- [This e-mail was scanned for viruses by our AntiVirus Protection System] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Pac Wireless Enclosures
Title: Pac Wireless Enclosures Anyone know were to buy some… everyone its out of stock…. Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Trango help- New AP Firmware and 5800 SUs
Yes, you can upgrade the AP firmware and everything will still work fine. And there is no need to change the SU number either. We have many older 5800SU's attached to upgraded 5830AP's with no problems (all with SU numbers less than 500). Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: In order to support ARQ and M5580 SUs, the Trango 5830AP must be upgraded to the newest Firmware v2.0r2. It states in the Firmware tech notes, that it support sellecting which CPEs are ARQ enabled by setting its SUID. 1-500 = ARQ CPE, 501-8190 no-ARQ. However, I have an exusting 5800 SU on the sector which already has an SUID under 500, and 5800 SUs do not support ARQ. My understanding is that ARQ feature effects both sending from AP and sending from SU, which is why ARQ needs to be enabled and disabled per SU on both AP and SU. My understanding is that 5800SUs can only have their SUID changed from onsite over the Ethernet port. So what happens, if I upgrade my 5830AP firmware, and leave the 5800SU in the unsupported state on SUID 10 (under 500)? Will it work OK? (Of course I know ARQ is unsupported on 5800, so ARQ feature won't exist on SU side). Can I do my radio upgrades tonight, and get around to changing the 5800 SUID at a later date? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Marlon at work...
http://neofast.net/users/mark/pics/wp/onladder.jpg -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
