Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Marlon K. Schafer]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade


>I can tell you myself that I have personally spent hundreds of hours
> toward this effort, as has Marlon. As with any group effort there is
> no way to please everyone. After exhaustive discussions between
> everyone over 3 plus years our FCC committee worked together to
> develop a stance.

No we didn't.  The change from unlicensed to licensed lite was done by the 
FCC trip crew that did NO colaborating with the rest of the committee. 
Again, I'm not saying that licensed lite is a bad idea.  Not talking about 
it with the membership before adopting the stance is bad.

> I believe that within our committee Marlon is the
> only person who does not support the WISPA filing 100%.

Again, not quite right.  Tom has opposed much of this filing.  And Brian has 
had questions that weren't addressed.

>  There is no
> way to have a vote for everything and frankly we usually see low
> turnout for votes or surveys.

We didn't even vote for anything at the committee level!

> What we do is have open discussions with
> everyone and we try to develop a consensus.

No we didn't.  There was nothing on the committee mailing list about this 
latest conference call that was brought up.  And not everyone was even 
allowed to volunteer for the last conference call dealing with the "common 
ground" issue.

> This discussion has been
> taking place since the beginning of WISPA and nobody has been denied a
> chance to speak their wishes regarding this proposed filing.

That's not at all true.  This filing was NEVER floated to the membership. 
It was ramrodded through the committee with no votes taken there either. 
Alternate ideas that gave the same result were rejected outright.

>
> Please read the plan delivered in the WISPA filing and see what we
> have done. We have all developed a plan that EVERYONE except AT&T and
> Verizon will support.

Sure they will.  The broadcasters get 3 for 1 on spectrum out of this!  They 
have NOTHING to loose here.  And when they want some of the spectrum back? 
Just start up a new TV channel and take 3 more channels away from the 
licensed lite guys.  Much easier than trying to take spectrum from someone 
that paid top dollar in an auction.  The only thing better than the WISPA 
proposal from the broadcaster perspective would be no secondary use.

> The only people who cannot live with or should
> not support our filing are those who are only happy with having their
> own ideas supported exclusively every time.

OK, yeah I'll take that personally.  So be it.  It's not right but oh well.

> We cannot allow one
> person's ideas to control what we file as an organization. We have not
> done this with this filing. Our filing represents everyone's ideas as
> accurately and fairly  as anyone could have ever done.

Please re-read the last month's FCC committee posts John.  We did not have 
discussion of alternate ideas.  All we did was roll out the support of the 
broadcasters and/or iFiber (hope I remember that company right).  I think 
those are good goals, I'm just not happy about giving away the farm for it.

>
> I will never try to downplay Marlon's role, or my own for that matter,
> but to say this was not a joint consensus position, as Marlon has
> said, is just not right. Every part of this has been given lengthy
> discussion, thought and effort and it represents a real way for us to
> use this band efficiently and effectively to deliver broadband. It is
> superior to "wild west" unlicensed-only policy and has every other
> advantage of unlicensed supported. In fact it has provisions for pure
> unlicensed represented in the plan.

Again, please re-read the posts.  No alternative plans were talked through. 
You had me shouting from the mountain top that there were flaws with this 
proposal.  Tom saying that the WISPA adjacent channel proposal would leave 
him with no spectrum in his market and Brian asking why the alternatives 
that I'd tossed out where so bad.  Then WISPA filed, with nothing ever 
making it out to the membership until it was too late to change anything.

My biggest bitch here is that we've ended up with a trade association that 
doesn't give it's membership an input.  Again.

>
> When we get our policies supported in the final FCC Report and Order
> of the TV Whitespace then everyone here should know you all played a
> strong role in developing what was delivered to the FCC. You should
> know that with this policy WISPs will finally be represented fairly in
> spectrum policy.

I for one hope that most of the WISPA proposals do NOT make it into the 
regs.  There are far better ways to acheive the same goals.  We can 
accomodate the broadcasters and not have to give up the farm either.

>
> Please read our filing and let your own decision making process decide
> whether this filing dese

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[RickG]

Nope, I already tested it. -RickG

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Josh Luthman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am no electrician by any means but I think using both the DC jack and PoE,
> technically speaking, would freak the board's power supply out.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> --- Henry Spencer
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:33 AM, CHUCK PROFITO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
>> Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if one
>> failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
>> possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from the
>> good one?
>> Can that work?
>>
>> Chuck Profito
>> 209-988-7388
>> CV-ACCESS, INC
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Providing High Speed Broadband
>> to Rural Central California
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of RickG
>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>>
>> Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on
>> the poe connection? -RickG
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hello all
>> >
>> > Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik routers at
>> > the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for options..
>> >
>> > Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
>> >
>> > Gino A. Villarini
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>> > tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 
>> 
>> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> > http://signup.wispa.org/
>> >
>>
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> >
>> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> >
>> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] long term outlook of Cisco's outdoor mesh?

[Rogelio]

I heard a rumor from someone who used to work at Cisco that they will 
discontinue their outdoor mesh line, but I have yet to confirm this.

Someone I know who is considering buying quite a bit of their outdoor 
mesh stuff asked them if this was the case or not, and they said that 
the Cisco rep would not answer or even commit to asking internally to 
see what the long term outlook on the product line would be.

Can anyone else here provide any info that might help confirm or deny 
this rumor?



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] easily importing long/lat into Google Earth

[Josh Luthman]

Import from what?

You simply search the coordinates and it points it on the map...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=-4.815++-162.342&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ll=1.054628,-140.625&spn=152.614639,316.40625&z=2&iwloc=addr

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Rogelio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> How do you import longitude and latitude data into google earth?
>
> (I'm googling on how to do it, but don't see an easy answer)
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] easily importing long/lat into Google Earth

[John McDowell]

Ask Brian Webster. He's the mac when it comes to that stuff. So far  
this month we've only had one failed install due to signal and it's  
because we use his coverage maps in google earth to prequalify.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 24, 2008, at 6:25 PM, Rogelio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> How do you import longitude and latitude data into google earth?
>
> (I'm googling on how to do it, but don't see an easy answer)
>
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] easily importing long/lat into Google Earth

[Rogelio]

How do you import longitude and latitude data into google earth?

(I'm googling on how to do it, but don't see an easy answer)



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] cards

[Randy Cosby]

Anyone using Zcomax cards?  I see a lot of radio makers use them 
(Tranzeo, Ligowave/Deliberant).  Not sure how they would compare on 
static discharge issues.

Randy
 

Travis Johnson wrote:
> MT RB411
>
> Harold Bledsoe wrote:
>   
>> What CPU board are you using as this may limit your options?
>>
>> -Hal
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List
>> 
>> Subject: [WISPA] cards
>> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:09:18 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are currently using the Compex WLM54-SAG23 cards for customer
>> radios... however, we are having a lot of failures with the cards (due
>> to static, etc.). Has anyone found a better card that is in the same
>> price range?
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   

-- 
Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc

office: 435-773-6071





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] MT Nstreme fixes

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

For those that have not seen it yet, Mikrotik made some major 
improvements to their Nstreme protocol for point to multi-point 
configurations. It is still in "beta" form, but it has made huge 
improvements in latency and jitter on AP's with 30+ customers connected.

Here is the link to their forum (with the links to download the 
wireless-test packages):

http://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27302&sid=05236c57034c45554166b09c98405ffe&p=133298#p133298

thanks,

Travis
Microserv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.

[Mike Hammett]

Indeed.

The highest channel here in the proposed space is 50, so there's I think 1 
channel that's not between the lowest (2) and the highest.   :-p


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



--
From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:08 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.

> One point of technical clarification. The white spaces also address the
> unused TV channels in an area, not just the spaces in between.
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:52 PM
> To: WISPA List
> Subject: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.
>
>
> You are greatly encouraged to pass this email along.
>
>
>
> Please take a few minutes to file comments on this proceeding.  Comments 
> are
> due Tuesday, October 28th, 2008.  The passage of this with friendly terms 
> to
> Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be a great benefit to my
> company, Intelligent Computing Solutions.
>
>
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S
> paces&Send=Continue
>
>
>
> or if the above link doesn't open a form
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5v3soz
>
>
>
> To summarize what this is about, TV white spaces are the channels in 
> between
> broadcast channels that aren't a TV station.  The Federal Government is
> contemplating whether to open the usage of this space to other users.  Why
> this space is so important is that it will allow my Internet signals to go
> longer distances, through trees and buildings.  It would allow me to 
> service
> anyone in a certain radius of my towers because nothing really gets in the
> way.  This space is prime space as it travels through anything, goes long
> distances, and also is large enough to support high speed Internet.  The
> licensed lite method removes a multiple billion dollar barrier to me using
> this space and prevents the flood of consumer electronics into the space,
> making providing service significantly more difficult, if not impossible.
> The greatest benefit will be to we rural members of America where the low
> population density and large geographic area makes providing high speed
> services difficult and
>  relatively expensive.  If you want more information certainly ask me at
> (address removed on the list copy).
>
>
>
> What do you say?  It could be as simple as the following:
>
>
>
> I fully support the Intelligent Computing Solutions proposal for the
> LICENSED LITE usage of TV white spaces for wireless broadband.
>
>
>
> I won't be filing my comments for a couple days so I have the best 
> proposal
> I can create before the deadline, but you can be assured that it will be
> there.  You should be able to see my comments, once posted, at the 
> following
> address.
>
>
>
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
> rieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186&applicant_name=Intelligent%20Computing%20Sol
> utions
>
>
>
> or
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/59prgr
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****

[Mike Hammett]

Is there a search feature for the comments?


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



--
From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:32 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Motorola Canopy User Group'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'WISPA Board Members List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'STEPHEN E. CORAN'" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WISPA's FCC Committee'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!

> Wispa Members and List Users,
>
>
>
> Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186,
> Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for
> unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band.  The submission 
> can
> be found at
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
>  nt=6520176838> &id_document=6520176838.  Please review our comments first.
> Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent
> hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which
> encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in
> Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition.  We owe all of these people 
> many
> thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting
> our support through individual comments.
>
>
>
> While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became
> apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry 
> against
> this proposal.  I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US
> in opposition to this FCC proposal.  I did see several which supported the
> use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered.
> There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket.  Others
> see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well.
>
>
>
> It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of
> you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments 
> or
> at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our
> comments.  I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email.
> This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC
> commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to
> unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband.  You can
> review all comments at
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
> rieve_list
>  trieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186> &id_proceeding=04-186.
>
>
>
> Please go to
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S
> paces
>  Spaces&Send=Continue> &Send=Continue to file your comments today.  The
> deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to 
> publicize
> the rules for these bands on November 4th.  It is essential that you take
> 5-10 minutes out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file
> your comments.
>
>
>
> Rick Harnish
>
> President
>
> WISPA
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Jeff Broadwick]

Well, I know of one thing you disagreed with right off John...the word
"ubiquitous" on the 2nd page...know how much you love that word.

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Scrivner
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:43 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

I can tell you myself that I have personally spent hundreds of hours toward
this effort, as has Marlon. As with any group effort there is no way to
please everyone. After exhaustive discussions between everyone over 3 plus
years our FCC committee worked together to develop a stance. I believe that
within our committee Marlon is the only person who does not support the
WISPA filing 100%.  There is no way to have a vote for everything and
frankly we usually see low turnout for votes or surveys. What we do is have
open discussions with everyone and we try to develop a consensus. This
discussion has been taking place since the beginning of WISPA and nobody has
been denied a chance to speak their wishes regarding this proposed filing.

Please read the plan delivered in the WISPA filing and see what we have
done. We have all developed a plan that EVERYONE except AT&T and Verizon
will support. The only people who cannot live with or should not support our
filing are those who are only happy with having their own ideas supported
exclusively every time. We cannot allow one person's ideas to control what
we file as an organization. We have not done this with this filing. Our
filing represents everyone's ideas as accurately and fairly  as anyone could
have ever done.

I will never try to downplay Marlon's role, or my own for that matter, but
to say this was not a joint consensus position, as Marlon has said, is just
not right. Every part of this has been given lengthy discussion, thought and
effort and it represents a real way for us to use this band efficiently and
effectively to deliver broadband. It is superior to "wild west"
unlicensed-only policy and has every other advantage of unlicensed
supported. In fact it has provisions for pure unlicensed represented in the
plan.

When we get our policies supported in the final FCC Report and Order of the
TV Whitespace then everyone here should know you all played a strong role in
developing what was delivered to the FCC. You should know that with this
policy WISPs will finally be represented fairly in spectrum policy.

Please read our filing and let your own decision making process decide
whether this filing deserves your support. I know it does even if many of my
own ideas were not part of the final filing. It is the plan for our future
and we should all support it fully.

If there are things you would like to see done differently then by all means
speak your mind with your own filing. We have delivered the tools directly
to you to allow you to speak your mind with the link to the comment
reporting process and instructions on how to do so. Nobody is being denied a
voice. I believe it is possible for all of us to say we like this in the
WISPA filing and that in the WISPA filing but maybe we wanted to see this
added or that changed or this removed. I see nothing to gain in us arguing
amongst ourselves about the process which led us to this filing. It is the
best filing we have ever made as an organization in form and content and we
need to show our support for it.

With sincerest respect for all,
John Scrivner



On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do?  Make decisions as to 
> what they feel their constituency wants without directly asking them every
time?
> If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote someone in that will 
> speak more in line with what you desire.
>
> I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I 
> file my own comments.  I was going to file saying "Yup, I agree with 
> WISPA" until Marlons comments.  Now I want to know what others think.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant 
>> (first went there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point 
>> out some critical flaws in our proposals.  I said much of this at the 
>> committee level but to no avail.
>>
>> First, let me say this though.  The filing is masterful.  It's a 
>> GREAT document.  My heartburn has nothing to do with the document 
>> it's self or the hard work that's gone into it.  My heartburn is 
>> content based.
>>
>> Well, most of it is anyway.  I have a problem with WISPA changing 
>> it's stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without 

Re: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.

[Brian Webster]

One point of technical clarification. The white spaces also address the
unused TV channels in an area, not just the spaces in between.


Thank You,
Brian Webster


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:52 PM
To: WISPA List
Subject: [WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.


You are greatly encouraged to pass this email along.



Please take a few minutes to file comments on this proceeding.  Comments are
due Tuesday, October 28th, 2008.  The passage of this with friendly terms to
Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be a great benefit to my
company, Intelligent Computing Solutions.



http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S
paces&Send=Continue



or if the above link doesn't open a form



http://tinyurl.com/5v3soz



To summarize what this is about, TV white spaces are the channels in between
broadcast channels that aren't a TV station.  The Federal Government is
contemplating whether to open the usage of this space to other users.  Why
this space is so important is that it will allow my Internet signals to go
longer distances, through trees and buildings.  It would allow me to service
anyone in a certain radius of my towers because nothing really gets in the
way.  This space is prime space as it travels through anything, goes long
distances, and also is large enough to support high speed Internet.  The
licensed lite method removes a multiple billion dollar barrier to me using
this space and prevents the flood of consumer electronics into the space,
making providing service significantly more difficult, if not impossible.
The greatest benefit will be to we rural members of America where the low
population density and large geographic area makes providing high speed
services difficult and
  relatively expensive.  If you want more information certainly ask me at
(address removed on the list copy).



What do you say?  It could be as simple as the following:



I fully support the Intelligent Computing Solutions proposal for the
LICENSED LITE usage of TV white spaces for wireless broadband.



I won't be filing my comments for a couple days so I have the best proposal
I can create before the deadline, but you can be assured that it will be
there.  You should be able to see my comments, once posted, at the following
address.



http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
rieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186&applicant_name=Intelligent%20Computing%20Sol
utions



or



http://tinyurl.com/59prgr



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





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****

[Rick Harnish]

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!

Is there a search feature for the comments?


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



--
From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:32 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Motorola Canopy User Group'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'WISPA Board Members List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'STEPHEN E. CORAN'" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WISPA's FCC Committee'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!

> Wispa Members and List Users,
>
>
>
> Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186,
> Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for
> unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band.  The submission 
> can
> be found at
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
>
 nt=6520176838> &id_document=6520176838.  Please review our comments first.
> Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent
> hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which
> encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in
> Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition.  We owe all of these people 
> many
> thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting
> our support through individual comments.
>
>
>
> While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became
> apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry 
> against
> this proposal.  I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US
> in opposition to this FCC proposal.  I did see several which supported the
> use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered.
> There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket.  Others
> see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well.
>
>
>
> It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of
> you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments 
> or
> at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our
> comments.  I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email.
> This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC
> commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to
> unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband.  You can
> review all comments at
>
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
> rieve_list
>
 trieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186> &id_proceeding=04-186.
>
>
>
> Please go to
>
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S
> paces
>
 Spaces&Send=Continue> &Send=Continue to file your comments today.  The
> deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to 
> publicize
> the rules for these bands on November 4th.  It is essential that you take
> 5-10 minutes out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file
> your comments.
>
>
>
> Rick Harnish
>
> President
>
> WISPA
>
>
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Pipe mount

[Jeromie Reeves]

If it is cast iron, I just mount what ever antenna directly to it. If
I need to extend it I use cast of slightly larger diameter and slip it
over. There is a cross cut (+) for 3 inches and 2 hose clamps, keeps
it pretty tight. If it is not cast iron or galvanized then I do not
touch them.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are you guys using to mount something like a RooTenna to a vent pipe on 
> a roof?
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] What I sent to my friends, customers, etc.

[Mike Hammett]

You are greatly encouraged to pass this email along.

 

Please take a few minutes to file comments on this proceeding.  Comments are 
due Tuesday, October 28th, 2008.  The passage of this with friendly terms to 
Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs) would be a great benefit to my 
company, Intelligent Computing Solutions.

 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+Spaces&Send=Continue

 

or if the above link doesn't open a form

 

http://tinyurl.com/5v3soz

 

To summarize what this is about, TV white spaces are the channels in between 
broadcast channels that aren't a TV station.  The Federal Government is 
contemplating whether to open the usage of this space to other users.  Why this 
space is so important is that it will allow my Internet signals to go longer 
distances, through trees and buildings.  It would allow me to service anyone in 
a certain radius of my towers because nothing really gets in the way.  This 
space is prime space as it travels through anything, goes long distances, and 
also is large enough to support high speed Internet.  The licensed lite method 
removes a multiple billion dollar barrier to me using this space and prevents 
the flood of consumer electronics into the space, making providing service 
significantly more difficult, if not impossible.  The greatest benefit will be 
to we rural members of America where the low population density and large 
geographic area makes providing high speed services difficult and
  relatively expensive.  If you want more information certainly ask me at 
(address removed on the list copy).

 

What do you say?  It could be as simple as the following:

 

I fully support the Intelligent Computing Solutions proposal for the LICENSED 
LITE usage of TV white spaces for wireless broadband.

 

I won't be filing my comments for a couple days so I have the best proposal I 
can create before the deadline, but you can be assured that it will be there.  
You should be able to see my comments, once posted, at the following address.

 

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=retrieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186&applicant_name=Intelligent%20Computing%20Solutions

 

or

 

http://tinyurl.com/59prgr



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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Butch Evans]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Mike Hammett wrote:

>Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do?  Make decisions as 
>to what they feel their constituency wants without directly asking 
>them every time? If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote 
>someone in that will speak more in line with what you desire.

Well, the FCC committee is not an elected body.

>I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I 
>file my own comments.  I was going to file saying "Yup, I agree 
>with WISPA" until Marlons comments.  Now I want to know what others 
>think.

Did you read what WISPA filed?  If not, then you most certainly 
should.  It is a very well written document that is easy to 
understand.  I did not agree 100% with what WISPA filed, however I 
DID file a comment that supported the WISPA filing and added my own 
suggestions for the parts I didn't agree with.  For the most part, 
however, I think the approach taken in the WISPA filing really IS 
the best approach (with some exceptions).

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * Wired or Wireless Networks   *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Forrest W. Christian]

Mike Hammett wrote:
> The difference between sensing in 5 GHz and sensing in TV spaces is that the 
> TV transmitters are published and easily accessed in terms of location, 
> height, transmitter power, etc.  
But microphone users are not.  The sensing proposals indicate that 
sensing devices *must* get out of the way of the microphones.   So, the 
devices must sense any of dozens of types of microphones.  You could 
have service which works perfectly well, and then the church down the 
street from your AP decides to turn a microphone on and now you have to 
move to another channel, if one is available.
> To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels.  Channels 2, 5, 7, 9, 
> 11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations.  If I try to use 
> channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out.  Sensing 
> should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real 
> world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would 
> permit.  The database would take into account worst case actions.  The 
> sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing.
>   
I would expect that there would be some future rulemaking if this became 
an issue to permit engineered AP's within a certain band.   The FCC is 
well aware of geographical and RF engineering issues which permit closer 
collocation than would be expected by drawing circles on a map.

Under the wispa proposal, you would onlyhave access to channels 4, 
13-24, 28-30, 46-48, and >51 anyways..   Heck, that's only 114Mhz, or 19 
6Mhz channels.  With 20W of output power, and very little Part-15 noise 
you should be able to easily accomplish 50Mb/s/channel, or 950Mb/s 
aggregate
> How much bandwidth can a microphone really use?
>   
Not much.  In the dozen(s) of khz range, not Mhz.  Some spread spectrum 
ones use more, but they are also effectively lower power.
> I'm actually against any unlicensed use in this band, or if there is, keep 
> it similar to 5.1 GHz rules...  a power so low it's practically useless.
Exactly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Brian Webster]

One of the problems with sensing as it is proposed, there are no provisions
for the sensing to accommodate other unlicensed users in the spectrum, only
TV stations and other incumbent users. That's a big problem if you are a
WISP and someone fires up their unlicensed gear and takes out your
customers.

The OET report on the testing of the devices still shows a very high failure
rate of the sensing devices that people claim are working. There is no
public comment period for that report and their conclusion is contrary to
their own data. The sensing will also not work well in areas where a over
the air TV users have to use a big antenna with a pre-amp out on the fringe
of the TV coverage area. If they can barely pick up signal like that, these
unlicensed devices will certainly not sense the TV signal and therefore
think they can transmit. Those devices will then easily swamp a mast mounted
TV preamp and wipe out the signal. As a WISP do you want to deal with those
types of problems from people who aren't even your customersseems like a
nightmare to me.

If they are wrong and there is a huge production run of these devices that
cause problems, that spectrum will be lost for serious outdoor wireless use
forever. Those devices will end up being repurposed for things they weren't
intended or at emission levels that are not what they are type accepted for.
We know this is the case, it happens in the bands we use now and to be
honest that is how this industry got started. Thing is when allowing that to
happen, you can't say "we can do it but you can't" to groups that might
start different uses for the equipment that harms your operations.

"Licensed-Lite" if approved will give you some official standing with the
FCC against this problem of unlicensed devices. While you would not be a
primary user or have exclusive rights, you would have protection from the
unlicensed consumer devices. Today you have none of that unless you are
operating in licensed spectrum.

>From the beginning most who have followed the whitespaces issue have
understood that the metro markets have little to gain by this ruling, the
spectrum is that crowded already. This was never supposed to give free
spectrum to the metro markets. There is too much money to be had to do that
and if there were any amount of spectrum in those markets it would have been
auctioned, plain and simple. That is reality. The whitespaces was to provide
opportunity to the rural markets, with underutilized spectrum, to deliver
economical broadband to the low density areas that do not have adequate
service now.

WISP's in the metro markets unfortunately will not get a lot from
whitespaces. It really was never intended to be that way from day one.


Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:11 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade


The difference between sensing in 5 GHz and sensing in TV spaces is that the
TV transmitters are published and easily accessed in terms of location,
height, transmitter power, etc.  The military radars are supposedly secret.
Without long term spectrum analysis, you have no way of knowing if military
radar is in your area...  and it may not even be a station activated at this
time, but still able to be powered on in 3 years, once you've built a big
network around it.

To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels.  Channels 2, 5, 7, 9,
11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations.  If I try to use
channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out.  Sensing
should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real
world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would
permit.  The database would take into account worst case actions.  The
sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing.

How much bandwidth can a microphone really use?

I'm actually against any unlicensed use in this band, or if there is, keep
it similar to 5.1 GHz rules...  a power so low it's practically useless.


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



--
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:58 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

> I'm going to ignore the first part of your email (since I'm sure others
> will discuss), and point out a couple of things you missed:
>
> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3
>> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area.
> The proposal indicates that we give up the channel, plus the adjacent
> ones for each DTV channel not microphone users.
>
> I'm not sure where it occured, but there was one discussion I
> participated in where part of th

[WISPA] Pipe mount

[Mike Hammett]

What are you guys using to mount something like a RooTenna to a vent pipe on a 
roof?


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




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Mike Hammett]

The difference between sensing in 5 GHz and sensing in TV spaces is that the 
TV transmitters are published and easily accessed in terms of location, 
height, transmitter power, etc.  The military radars are supposedly secret. 
Without long term spectrum analysis, you have no way of knowing if military 
radar is in your area...  and it may not even be a station activated at this 
time, but still able to be powered on in 3 years, once you've built a big 
network around it.

To keep things simple, I'll speak to analog channels.  Channels 2, 5, 7, 9, 
11, 26, 32, 44, and 50 are the major Chicago stations.  If I try to use 
channel 9 around here with sensing, I deserve to get kicked out.  Sensing 
should allow me to be closer to Davenport, IA's channel 6 based on real 
world measurements than what an extremely conservative database would 
permit.  The database would take into account worst case actions.  The 
sensing would take into account what the radio is actually doing.

How much bandwidth can a microphone really use?

I'm actually against any unlicensed use in this band, or if there is, keep 
it similar to 5.1 GHz rules...  a power so low it's practically useless.


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



--
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:58 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

> I'm going to ignore the first part of your email (since I'm sure others
> will discuss), and point out a couple of things you missed:
>
> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3
>> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area.
> The proposal indicates that we give up the channel, plus the adjacent
> ones for each DTV channel not microphone users.
>
> I'm not sure where it occured, but there was one discussion I
> participated in where part of the discussion were that the microphone
> users indicated they were perfectly happy in the middle of the adjacent
> channels.   As a microphone user myself, I know that I'm happy operating
> on adjacent channels.
>
> So, say you have a location where channels 1 and 5 are used.   We could
> locate on channel 3.   The microphone users would end up on channels 2
> and 4, since they would not be limited by the adjacent channel
> limitation.The purpose of the microphone users being in the
> database, in my mind, is so we know where they are and so we can either
> work around or with them...   For instance, if they were on channel 3,
> we could perhaps work with them to clear out channel 3 for our own use.
>
> I think the idea is that you separate "high power", nominally-licensed
> users by at least one channel, and then you can let the unlicensed users
> use what is left.
>> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism.
> Ask many operators in 5.2 and 5.4 about how well they like sensing, and
> you'll understand why sensing does not make sense.
>
> I like the proposal, in that it basically says, "broadcasters are
> important in this band, and so are the WISP's running licensed lite.
> Both of you should be able to put out plenty of power, as long as you
> don't interfere with each other - and since we can define where your
> transmitters are, you don't have to use sensing.   If you instead want
> to operate unlicensed you can do that as well, but you must use lower
> power and sensing".
>
> I agree that unlicensed operation in this band is of interest, but I am
> also a firm believer that permitting even 1W using just sensing is never
> going to fly, just because of the interference potential - what if a
> device with a deaf receiver decides it can't hear anything on a TV
> station's channel and fires up running 20W?
>
> For high power, we're probably going to have to live with geolocation.
> If we have to live with geolocation, why don't we just discard the
> sensing since all it will do is reduce reliability of the service?
>
>> Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be
>> found that will work.
> Already in the proposal.   Sensing can be used for unlicensed devices.
>> Licensed lite is a great idea.  There should be NO first in mechanism
>> though.  This leads to those with all of the money getting all of the 
>> prime
>> slots and the rest of us sucking hind teet again.
> From the proposal:
>
> "In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities
> could be designed through techniques
> such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or
> channel
> selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be
> obligated to negotiate in
> good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and
> keep records of their
> discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission."
>
>>  Just think about how
>> many mics coul

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Mike Hammett]

*nods*  WISPA should have a solid stance, whatever that may be.  That allows 
individual operators to say (which I intend to do), "I agree with WISPA 
except on this one (or two) points.".  I'm sure nothing proposed is so 
grotesque to anyone that they couldn't follow if that was approved.

My intent in generating discussion was for education.  All I know about 
white spaces is what I read in the WISPA filing, what the 802.22 Wikipedia 
entry says, and the occasional article on device testing.


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



--
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:42 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

> I can tell you myself that I have personally spent hundreds of hours
> toward this effort, as has Marlon. As with any group effort there is
> no way to please everyone. After exhaustive discussions between
> everyone over 3 plus years our FCC committee worked together to
> develop a stance. I believe that within our committee Marlon is the
> only person who does not support the WISPA filing 100%.  There is no
> way to have a vote for everything and frankly we usually see low
> turnout for votes or surveys. What we do is have open discussions with
> everyone and we try to develop a consensus. This discussion has been
> taking place since the beginning of WISPA and nobody has been denied a
> chance to speak their wishes regarding this proposed filing.
>
> Please read the plan delivered in the WISPA filing and see what we
> have done. We have all developed a plan that EVERYONE except AT&T and
> Verizon will support. The only people who cannot live with or should
> not support our filing are those who are only happy with having their
> own ideas supported exclusively every time. We cannot allow one
> person's ideas to control what we file as an organization. We have not
> done this with this filing. Our filing represents everyone's ideas as
> accurately and fairly  as anyone could have ever done.
>
> I will never try to downplay Marlon's role, or my own for that matter,
> but to say this was not a joint consensus position, as Marlon has
> said, is just not right. Every part of this has been given lengthy
> discussion, thought and effort and it represents a real way for us to
> use this band efficiently and effectively to deliver broadband. It is
> superior to "wild west" unlicensed-only policy and has every other
> advantage of unlicensed supported. In fact it has provisions for pure
> unlicensed represented in the plan.
>
> When we get our policies supported in the final FCC Report and Order
> of the TV Whitespace then everyone here should know you all played a
> strong role in developing what was delivered to the FCC. You should
> know that with this policy WISPs will finally be represented fairly in
> spectrum policy.
>
> Please read our filing and let your own decision making process decide
> whether this filing deserves your support. I know it does even if many
> of my own ideas were not part of the final filing. It is the plan for
> our future and we should all support it fully.
>
> If there are things you would like to see done differently then by all
> means speak your mind with your own filing. We have delivered the
> tools directly to you to allow you to speak your mind with the link to
> the comment reporting process and instructions on how to do so. Nobody
> is being denied a voice. I believe it is possible for all of us to say
> we like this in the WISPA filing and that in the WISPA filing but
> maybe we wanted to see this added or that changed or this removed. I
> see nothing to gain in us arguing amongst ourselves about the process
> which led us to this filing. It is the best filing we have ever made
> as an organization in form and content and we need to show our support
> for it.
>
> With sincerest respect for all,
> John Scrivner
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
>> Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do?  Make decisions as to 
>> what
>> they feel their constituency wants without directly asking them every 
>> time?
>> If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote someone in that will 
>> speak
>> more in line with what you desire.
>>
>> I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I file 
>> my
>> own comments.  I was going to file saying "Yup, I agree with WISPA" until
>> Marlons comments.  Now I want to know what others think.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> As a member of the F

Re: [WISPA] Defaulting a CCU3100

[Mike Hammett]

Wait long enough, sooner or later it won't pay its mortgage on time.


haha, sorry   :-D


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



--
From: "John McDowell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:08 AM
To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
; "wisp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WISPA] Defaulting a CCU3100

> Does anyone know how to default a CCU3100?
>
> -- 
> John M. McDowell
> Boonlink Communications
> 307 Grand Ave NW
> Fort Payne, AL 35967
> 256.844.9932
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.boonlink.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
> privileged.
> Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
> you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or 
> any
> information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
> error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
> delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to 
> spoofing,
> spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
> computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or 
> the
> source, please contact the sender directly.
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Mike Hammett]

Maybe I'm asking too much here, but shouldn't the plan include something to 
get it passed as quickly as possible as well as a defined pathway to what we 
actually want?  Again borrowing from 3650, a lot of devices can use the 
lower 25 MHz, but the FCC is holding out on the upper 25 MHz until certain 
requirements are met.

Maybe we'll have to give up adjacent channel usage to get it pushed through, 
but we really want to use that spectrum.

Maybe we'll have to settle with geolocation to get it pushed through, but we 
really want sensing.  IIRC, some companies made test sensing equipment that 
worked just fine.

GPS synch is good within a single company as you're likely to have the same 
policies.  However, other companies could tune for other things, making GPS 
synch meaningless.  I believe 802.16h and 802.11y have been working out the 
whole access-point-sharing-air-time issue.

I believe 802.22 is what I'm wanting, but I don't have enough time to figure 
out it's intricacies and I'm hoping someone here knows more about it than I 
do.

Disagreeing with Marlon, I fully support channel bonding in the white 
spaces.  6 MHz isn't enough these days to do real data throughput.  However, 
I don't want to see something like Tsunami again, using all of 5 GHz to do 
what, 45 megabits?  I hate to see regulation tied to technology, but maybe 
there needs to be a minimum bit/Hz to do bonding.  The 6 MHz TV channels 
would only yield approximately 19 mbit/s.  We need systems capable of using 
2 or 3 channels to provide real bandwidth while still protecting 
oversubscription.




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



--
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

> Hi All,
>
> As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first 
> went
> there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical
> flaws in our proposals.  I said much of this at the committee level but to
> no avail.
>
> First, let me say this though.  The filing is masterful.  It's a GREAT
> document.  My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or 
> the
> hard work that's gone into it.  My heartburn is content based.
>
> Well, most of it is anyway.  I have a problem with WISPA changing it's
> stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the
> membership on this issue.  Our last team came back from DC and told us 
> what
> our new position was.  That's NOT what I help found WISPA for.  I could 
> have
> just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part 
> of
> and been man handled like that.
>
> Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite
> concept.  I just don't like having a committee that will make a major 
> change
> without discussion before hand.  If there was discussion that said we were
> going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I 
> missed
> it.  I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on 
> by
> anyone when it came to an official stance.  Not the way to run this 
> railroad
> in my, not so, humble opinion.
>
> Now, to the whitespaces issue.
>
> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3
> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area.  A
> TV station goes live and we don't loose the channel that they are on, we
> loose it and 2 on each side.  This means that in any market that has as
> little as 1/3rd of the channels in use by licensed operators (TV stations
> AND mics) will be totally useless for us.  Why not simply set the out of
> band emissions standards high enough that we CAN use adjacent channels?  I
> begged for that language, it satisfies both us and the broadcasters.  I 
> know
> it's not technically possible today.  So what?  Just tonight as I was
> working on an AP I saw a customer connected at the 18meg speed with a 
> signal
> level of -96.  Who'd have imagined that would be possible just a couple of
> year ago?
>
> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism.  I use circles on a map. 
> I
> know how inaccurate they really are.  They also change dramatically as the
> technology changes.  When I started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size 
> was
> the max.  And if we got anywhere near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that
> also amped the receive signal by 14ish dB we were oh so happy.  Now I can 
> go
> even further than that and get 2 to 3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 
> watt
> or so.  Same exact CPE units that were in place when we pulled the AP'd ap
> system out.  Actual signal measurement is really the only way to 
> accurately
> determine interference issues.  Well, OK, I guess one could just put a 
> large
> enough exclusion zone around the broadcas

[WISPA] Defaulting a CCU3100

[John McDowell]

Does anyone know how to default a CCU3100?

-- 
John M. McDowell
Boonlink Communications
307 Grand Ave NW
Fort Payne, AL 35967
256.844.9932
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.boonlink.com






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged.
Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and
delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to spoofing,
spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or the
source, please contact the sender directly.



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Forrest W. Christian]

I'm going to ignore the first part of your email (since I'm sure others 
will discuss), and point out a couple of things you missed:

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3 
> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area. 
The proposal indicates that we give up the channel, plus the adjacent 
ones for each DTV channel not microphone users.

I'm not sure where it occured, but there was one discussion I 
participated in where part of the discussion were that the microphone 
users indicated they were perfectly happy in the middle of the adjacent 
channels.   As a microphone user myself, I know that I'm happy operating 
on adjacent channels.

So, say you have a location where channels 1 and 5 are used.   We could 
locate on channel 3.   The microphone users would end up on channels 2 
and 4, since they would not be limited by the adjacent channel 
limitation.The purpose of the microphone users being in the 
database, in my mind, is so we know where they are and so we can either 
work around or with them...   For instance, if they were on channel 3, 
we could perhaps work with them to clear out channel 3 for our own use.

I think the idea is that you separate "high power", nominally-licensed 
users by at least one channel, and then you can let the unlicensed users 
use what is left.
> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism. 
Ask many operators in 5.2 and 5.4 about how well they like sensing, and 
you'll understand why sensing does not make sense.

I like the proposal, in that it basically says, "broadcasters are 
important in this band, and so are the WISP's running licensed lite.   
Both of you should be able to put out plenty of power, as long as you 
don't interfere with each other - and since we can define where your 
transmitters are, you don't have to use sensing.   If you instead want 
to operate unlicensed you can do that as well, but you must use lower 
power and sensing".

I agree that unlicensed operation in this band is of interest, but I am 
also a firm believer that permitting even 1W using just sensing is never 
going to fly, just because of the interference potential - what if a 
device with a deaf receiver decides it can't hear anything on a TV 
station's channel and fires up running 20W? 

For high power, we're probably going to have to live with geolocation.   
If we have to live with geolocation, why don't we just discard the 
sensing since all it will do is reduce reliability of the service? 

> Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be 
> found that will work.  
Already in the proposal.   Sensing can be used for unlicensed devices.
> Licensed lite is a great idea.  There should be NO first in mechanism 
> though.  This leads to those with all of the money getting all of the prime 
> slots and the rest of us sucking hind teet again. 
 From the proposal:

"In the unlikely event that no non-interfering base station facilities 
could be designed through techniques
such as location changes, power reductions, antenna polarity changes or 
channel
selection, the registrant and the incumbent registrant would be 
obligated to negotiate in
good faith to coordinate their facilities for a period of 30 days and 
keep records of their
discussions in case the information is needed by the Commission."

>  Just think about how 
> many mics could cover the Indy 500 if they effectively had 1000 channels 
> available in every 6 MHz TV channel!?!?
>   
In reality, existing products are nearly this dense.  The Microphone 
users are just worried about having thousands of 'baby monitors' in 
their space.   One poorly designed 'baby monitor' could take out dozens 
of microphones at an event.   As long as the Microphone users can set 
their gear to a frequency and have some assurance that an interferer 
isn't going to come up on-channel, they will be happy.
> We also need to set max channel sizes. 
I agree in principle...   I would like to see an eirp per channel 
related to the width.   That is, the narrower the channel, the more 
power.  

The problem today is that if you spread out to a 40mhz wide channel, you 
can get more bandwidth just because you are limited to power.   If you 
were able to increase your power such that higher modulations were able 
to work in a narrow channel, I suspect that people would be using 
smaller channels.   Most of the wide channels I use today have to do 
more with total bandwidth needs for the link distances.  
> Never mind the fact that most of us that need  the TV band's can't use the 
> 5.4 band due to it's low power levels.
And that many of the people that can use the 5.4 band find it unusable 
due to DFS (sensing).
> Unlicensed whitespaces devices should ONLY be allowed to connect to 
> a registered base station.  It should be nearly impossible to use 
> whitespaces for home/office WLANs.
>   
Assuming that the FCC sticks to very low power (t

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[John Scrivner]

I can tell you myself that I have personally spent hundreds of hours
toward this effort, as has Marlon. As with any group effort there is
no way to please everyone. After exhaustive discussions between
everyone over 3 plus years our FCC committee worked together to
develop a stance. I believe that within our committee Marlon is the
only person who does not support the WISPA filing 100%.  There is no
way to have a vote for everything and frankly we usually see low
turnout for votes or surveys. What we do is have open discussions with
everyone and we try to develop a consensus. This discussion has been
taking place since the beginning of WISPA and nobody has been denied a
chance to speak their wishes regarding this proposed filing.

Please read the plan delivered in the WISPA filing and see what we
have done. We have all developed a plan that EVERYONE except AT&T and
Verizon will support. The only people who cannot live with or should
not support our filing are those who are only happy with having their
own ideas supported exclusively every time. We cannot allow one
person's ideas to control what we file as an organization. We have not
done this with this filing. Our filing represents everyone's ideas as
accurately and fairly  as anyone could have ever done.

I will never try to downplay Marlon's role, or my own for that matter,
but to say this was not a joint consensus position, as Marlon has
said, is just not right. Every part of this has been given lengthy
discussion, thought and effort and it represents a real way for us to
use this band efficiently and effectively to deliver broadband. It is
superior to "wild west" unlicensed-only policy and has every other
advantage of unlicensed supported. In fact it has provisions for pure
unlicensed represented in the plan.

When we get our policies supported in the final FCC Report and Order
of the TV Whitespace then everyone here should know you all played a
strong role in developing what was delivered to the FCC. You should
know that with this policy WISPs will finally be represented fairly in
spectrum policy.

Please read our filing and let your own decision making process decide
whether this filing deserves your support. I know it does even if many
of my own ideas were not part of the final filing. It is the plan for
our future and we should all support it fully.

If there are things you would like to see done differently then by all
means speak your mind with your own filing. We have delivered the
tools directly to you to allow you to speak your mind with the link to
the comment reporting process and instructions on how to do so. Nobody
is being denied a voice. I believe it is possible for all of us to say
we like this in the WISPA filing and that in the WISPA filing but
maybe we wanted to see this added or that changed or this removed. I
see nothing to gain in us arguing amongst ourselves about the process
which led us to this filing. It is the best filing we have ever made
as an organization in form and content and we need to show our support
for it.

With sincerest respect for all,
John Scrivner



On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do?  Make decisions as to what
> they feel their constituency wants without directly asking them every time?
> If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote someone in that will speak
> more in line with what you desire.
>
> I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I file my
> own comments.  I was going to file saying "Yup, I agree with WISPA" until
> Marlons comments.  Now I want to know what others think.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first
>> went
>> there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical
>> flaws in our proposals.  I said much of this at the committee level but to
>> no avail.
>>
>> First, let me say this though.  The filing is masterful.  It's a GREAT
>> document.  My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or
>> the
>> hard work that's gone into it.  My heartburn is content based.
>>
>> Well, most of it is anyway.  I have a problem with WISPA changing it's
>> stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the
>> membership on this issue.  Our last team came back from DC and told us
>> what
>> our new position was.  That's NOT what I help found WISPA for.  I could
>> have
>> just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part
>> of
>> and been man handled like that.
>>
>> Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE th

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Eric Rogers]

We currently use DC power supplies, but non-redundant
http://www.solaheviduty.com/products/powersupplies/sdp.htm.  We use
terminal strips to distribute the power.  For us to change, we just
replace the power supplies with this...
http://www.solaheviduty.com/products/powersupplies/sdnpred.htm.  That
has the rectifiers and diodes in place with LED status indicators to
show the status of the power.  Then you can put them in parallel and put
2 UPSs in place for failure and surge suppression.

Eric


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

My experience has been less then perfect with APC.  The 19" rack ones
have
been pretty good but the small 7 amp, 11 amp, tiny desktop models have
gone
bad on me.  Those units die way too often =/

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Faisal Imtiaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC
swtich
> for this purpose.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work
ease of
> work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant, Side
B to
> Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> 
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
>
> Yes, you could do this
>
> You will need to pick the right diode for the job.
>
> But what brings this on?
>
> I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major
damage.
> (lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)
>
> If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the
PS
> rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...
>
>
>
> CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
>
> OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
> Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then
if one
> failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop
a
> possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power
from the
> good one?
> Can that work?
>
> Chuck Profito
> 209-988-7388
> CV-ACCESS, INC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Providing High Speed Broadband
> to Rural Central California
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of RickG
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on
the poe
> connection? -RickG
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   wrote:
>
>
>Hello all
>
>Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik
routers
> at
>the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for
options..
>
>Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
>
>Gino A. Villarini
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> 
> 
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>
>

> 
> 
>
>
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>

> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>

> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>

> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>

> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> 

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Mike Hammett]

Isn't that what the elected are supposed to do?  Make decisions as to what 
they feel their constituency wants without directly asking them every time? 
If you don't like whomever was voted in, you vote someone in that will speak 
more in line with what you desire.

I would love to hear what others have to say on this issue before I file my 
own comments.  I was going to file saying "Yup, I agree with WISPA" until 
Marlons comments.  Now I want to know what others think.


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



--
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:29 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

> Hi All,
>
> As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first 
> went
> there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical
> flaws in our proposals.  I said much of this at the committee level but to
> no avail.
>
> First, let me say this though.  The filing is masterful.  It's a GREAT
> document.  My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or 
> the
> hard work that's gone into it.  My heartburn is content based.
>
> Well, most of it is anyway.  I have a problem with WISPA changing it's
> stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the
> membership on this issue.  Our last team came back from DC and told us 
> what
> our new position was.  That's NOT what I help found WISPA for.  I could 
> have
> just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part 
> of
> and been man handled like that.
>
> Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite
> concept.  I just don't like having a committee that will make a major 
> change
> without discussion before hand.  If there was discussion that said we were
> going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I 
> missed
> it.  I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on 
> by
> anyone when it came to an official stance.  Not the way to run this 
> railroad
> in my, not so, humble opinion.
>
> Now, to the whitespaces issue.
>
> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3
> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area.  A
> TV station goes live and we don't loose the channel that they are on, we
> loose it and 2 on each side.  This means that in any market that has as
> little as 1/3rd of the channels in use by licensed operators (TV stations
> AND mics) will be totally useless for us.  Why not simply set the out of
> band emissions standards high enough that we CAN use adjacent channels?  I
> begged for that language, it satisfies both us and the broadcasters.  I 
> know
> it's not technically possible today.  So what?  Just tonight as I was
> working on an AP I saw a customer connected at the 18meg speed with a 
> signal
> level of -96.  Who'd have imagined that would be possible just a couple of
> year ago?
>
> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism.  I use circles on a map. 
> I
> know how inaccurate they really are.  They also change dramatically as the
> technology changes.  When I started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size 
> was
> the max.  And if we got anywhere near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that
> also amped the receive signal by 14ish dB we were oh so happy.  Now I can 
> go
> even further than that and get 2 to 3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 
> watt
> or so.  Same exact CPE units that were in place when we pulled the AP'd ap
> system out.  Actual signal measurement is really the only way to 
> accurately
> determine interference issues.  Well, OK, I guess one could just put a 
> large
> enough exclusion zone around the broadcasters to make sure that there is 
> no
> interference.  Unfortunately that also means we end up with even less 
> market
> potential.
>
> Here is my idea for whitespaces.  This is what I'll be personally filing.
> I'll fine tune it and likely add some ideas that slip my mind right now.
> I'm still more than a bit miffed that there wasn't even a vote on our 
> filing
> (I know I'm whining, but I'm well and truly pissed).
>
> Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be
> found that will work.  Lets be honest here guys.  NO one knows IF the FCC
> will even allow white spaces use let alone with a sensing system.  Just 
> how
> much R and D do you think was put into this project in this economy?
> Sensing works great on $60 WiFi cards for God's sake!  (Listen before 
> talk,
> CSMAK.)  It'll work for TV channels as well.  It'll just take a little 
> more
> time and effort.  Set a high standard, one that will protect the licensed
> users and then let the market go to work on the problem.  Once sales
> opportunities actually exist people will start working on ways to make 
> this

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Josh Luthman]

I'll take that APC off your hands, free of charge.

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> I would agree, it is very easy to go overboard and over engineer to the
> n'th
> degree, however if you do that you will find that you would be introducing
> more elements which would cause a negative effect.
>
> E.g. Heat and power consumption...
>
> Coming for the wired world, where only now folks have started to pay
> attention to power comsumption and heat generation as being a bad thing.. I
> consistently amazed to see some very 'powerful' wireless equipment working
> with a 'wall wart'... It takes a bit for it to sync indue to the low
> power consumption that is all what is needed..
>
>
> Moral of the story:  Very easy to get carried away and over engineer, but
> doing it within reasonable limits is the right thing to do.
>
> ... Just me two cents..
>
> BTW: I have one of the APC redundant power switches, purchased it, thinking
> it would be a good thing to use... But never put it to use... Don't need it
> in a Data center !
>
> -:)
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
> Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Josh Luthman
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:42 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Not necessarily - your goal is to keep it powered 100% of the time.  What
> part seems to go bad for you most of the time?  The power supply, PoE, DC
> jack, power company/UPS unit?
>
> If the power supply on the board goes bad you're SOL, sorry.  You'll have
> to
> find another product.
>
> If the PoE or DC jack goes back, you need to get both of them powered.
>
> If you have the power company and UPS go bad find a second source of power
> (generator?).
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> --- Henry Spencer
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but the whole idea is to have every device with dual inputs
> >
> > 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 Faisal Imtiaz
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:20 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
> >
> >
> > Just a quick follow up.
> >
> > A quick search of the internet shows up a lot of devices.
> > (APC makes a few different types).
> > These are either called Dual AC Automatic Transfer Switch.
> > Or depending on your voltage needs, you could modify an  Dual AC power
> > supply module for Computer Or find a AC to DC rack mount powersupplies
> > used in Telco's .
> > They are typically modular but big and heavy.
> >
> > Many options.
> >
> > Faisal Imtiaz
> > Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:02 AM
> > To: 'WISPA General List'
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
> >
> > Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC
> > swtich for this purpose.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > Faisal Imtiaz
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
> >
> > We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work
> > ease of work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS
> > Plant, Side B to Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gino A. Villarini
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> > tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
> >
> > 
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Blair Davis
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, you could do this
> >
> > You will need to pick the right diode for the job.
> >
> > But what brings this on?
> >
> > I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
> > (lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)
> >
> > If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
> > rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...
> >
> >
> >
> > CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
> >
> > OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, bu

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

I would agree, it is very easy to go overboard and over engineer to the n'th
degree, however if you do that you will find that you would be introducing
more elements which would cause a negative effect.

E.g. Heat and power consumption...

Coming for the wired world, where only now folks have started to pay
attention to power comsumption and heat generation as being a bad thing.. I
consistently amazed to see some very 'powerful' wireless equipment working
with a 'wall wart'... It takes a bit for it to sync indue to the low
power consumption that is all what is needed..


Moral of the story:  Very easy to get carried away and over engineer, but
doing it within reasonable limits is the right thing to do.

... Just me two cents..

BTW: I have one of the APC redundant power switches, purchased it, thinking
it would be a good thing to use... But never put it to use... Don't need it
in a Data center !

-:) 


Faisal Imtiaz
Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:42 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

Not necessarily - your goal is to keep it powered 100% of the time.  What
part seems to go bad for you most of the time?  The power supply, PoE, DC
jack, power company/UPS unit?

If the power supply on the board goes bad you're SOL, sorry.  You'll have to
find another product.

If the PoE or DC jack goes back, you need to get both of them powered.

If you have the power company and UPS go bad find a second source of power
(generator?).

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yeah, but the whole idea is to have every device with dual inputs
>
> 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 Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
> Just a quick follow up.
>
> A quick search of the internet shows up a lot of devices.
> (APC makes a few different types).
> These are either called Dual AC Automatic Transfer Switch.
> Or depending on your voltage needs, you could modify an  Dual AC power 
> supply module for Computer Or find a AC to DC rack mount powersupplies 
> used in Telco's .
> They are typically modular but big and heavy.
>
> Many options.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC 
> swtich for this purpose.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> On Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work 
> ease of work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS 
> Plant, Side B to Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> 
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
>
> Yes, you could do this
>
> You will need to pick the right diode for the job.
>
> But what brings this on?
>
> I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
> (lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)
>
> If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
> rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...
>
>
>
> CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
>
> OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
> Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if
> one
> failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
> possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from
> the
> good one?
> Can that work?
>
> Chuck Profito
> 209-988-7388
> CV-ACCESS, INC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Providing High Speed Broadband
> to Rural Central California
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of RickG
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re:

Re: [WISPA] ****Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!****

[Mark Nash]

well THAT was super-easy to file comments.  Took about 45 seconds.  Everyone
should take 45 seconds for this...

Mark Nash
UnwiredWest
78 Centennial Loop
Suite E
Eugene, OR 97401
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax
http://www.unwiredwest.com
- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Motorola Canopy User Group'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'WISPA Board Members List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'STEPHEN E. CORAN'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WISPA's FCC Committee'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:32 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Plea for TV Whitespaces Comments!


> Wispa Members and List Users,
>
>
>
> Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186,
> Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for
> unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band.  The submission
can
> be found at
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
>
 nt=6520176838> &id_document=6520176838.  Please review our comments first.
> Jack Unger, Steve Coran of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent
> hours lobbying, discussing, researching and writing these comments which
> encourage unlicensed use of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in
> Feb. 2009 due to the Digital TV transition.  We owe all of these people
many
> thanks and it is our responsibility to support their efforts by submitting
> our support through individual comments.
>
>
>
> While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became
> apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry
against
> this proposal.  I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US
> in opposition to this FCC proposal.  I did see several which supported the
> use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered.
> There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket.  Others
> see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well.
>
>
>
> It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of
> you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments
or
> at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our
> comments.  I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email.
> This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC
> commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to
> unlicensed (light licensed) operation for wireless broadband.  You can
> review all comments at
>
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
> rieve_list
>
 trieve_list&id_proceeding=04-186> &id_proceeding=04-186.
>
>
>
> Please go to
>
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload?hot_docket=1009000856|04-186|TV+White+S
> paces
>
 Spaces&Send=Continue> &Send=Continue to file your comments today.  The
> deadline is quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to
publicize
> the rules for these bands on November 4th.  It is essential that you take
> 5-10 minutes out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file
> your comments.
>
>
>
> Rick Harnish
>
> President
>
> WISPA
>
>
>
>
>
> --
--
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --
--
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Josh Luthman]

Not necessarily - your goal is to keep it powered 100% of the time.  What
part seems to go bad for you most of the time?  The power supply, PoE, DC
jack, power company/UPS unit?

If the power supply on the board goes bad you're SOL, sorry.  You'll have to
find another product.

If the PoE or DC jack goes back, you need to get both of them powered.

If you have the power company and UPS go bad find a second source of power
(generator?).

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Yeah, but the whole idea is to have every device with dual inputs
>
> 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 Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
> Just a quick follow up.
>
> A quick search of the internet shows up a lot of devices.
> (APC makes a few different types).
> These are either called Dual AC Automatic Transfer Switch.
> Or depending on your voltage needs, you could modify an  Dual AC power
> supply module for Computer
> Or find a AC to DC rack mount powersupplies used in Telco's .
> They are typically modular but big and heavy.
>
> Many options.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:02 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC
> swtich
> for this purpose.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease
> of
> work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant, Side B
> to
> Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> 
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
>
> Yes, you could do this
>
> You will need to pick the right diode for the job.
>
> But what brings this on?
>
> I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
> (lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)
>
> If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
> rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...
>
>
>
> CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
>
> OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
> Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if
> one
> failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
> possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from
> the
> good one?
> Can that work?
>
> Chuck Profito
> 209-988-7388
> CV-ACCESS, INC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Providing High Speed Broadband
> to Rural Central California
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of RickG
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on the
> poe
> connection? -RickG
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   wrote:
>
>
>Hello all
>
>Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik
> routers
> at
>the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for
> options..
>
>Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
>
>Gino A. Villarini
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> ---

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Gino Villarini]

Yeah, but the whole idea is to have every device with dual inputs

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 Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

 
Just a quick follow up.

A quick search of the internet shows up a lot of devices.
(APC makes a few different types).
These are either called Dual AC Automatic Transfer Switch.
Or depending on your voltage needs, you could modify an  Dual AC power
supply module for Computer 
Or find a AC to DC rack mount powersupplies used in Telco's .
They are typically modular but big and heavy.

Many options.

Faisal Imtiaz
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:02 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC
swtich
for this purpose.


Thanks 


Faisal Imtiaz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease
of
work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant, Side B
to
Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.

 

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

 

Yes, you could do this

You will need to pick the right diode for the job.

But what brings this on?  

I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
(lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)

If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...



CHUCK PROFITO wrote: 

OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if
one
failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from
the
good one? 
Can that work?
 
Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing High Speed Broadband
to Rural Central California
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
 
Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on the
poe
connection? -RickG
 
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  wrote:
  

Hello all
 
Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik
routers
at
the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for
options..
 
Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
 
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 
 
 





  

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 





  

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 


 
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  

 






WISPA Wants You! 

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Josh Luthman]

My experience has been less then perfect with APC.  The 19" rack ones have
been pretty good but the small 7 amp, 11 amp, tiny desktop models have gone
bad on me.  Those units die way too often =/

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC swtich
> for this purpose.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gino Villarini
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease of
> work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant, Side B to
> Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> 
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
>
> Yes, you could do this
>
> You will need to pick the right diode for the job.
>
> But what brings this on?
>
> I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
> (lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)
>
> If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
> rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...
>
>
>
> CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
>
> OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
> Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if one
> failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
> possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from the
> good one?
> Can that work?
>
> Chuck Profito
> 209-988-7388
> CV-ACCESS, INC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Providing High Speed Broadband
> to Rural Central California
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of RickG
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on the poe
> connection? -RickG
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   wrote:
>
>
>Hello all
>
>Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik routers
> at
>the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for options..
>
>Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
>
>Gino A. Villarini
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> -

[WISPA] Whitespace Commenting UPDATE

[Rick Harnish]

UPDATE:

It looks like we are having an impact in the comments on the Whitespaces
NPRM.  I have reviewed many comments this morning from WISPs, subscribers
and potential subscribers.  We have some members who are going a step beyond
and alerting their subscribers and potential customers to support the WISPA
proposal.  More is needed, keep up the good work.  Below is the email I sent
yesterday with some minor modifications where I removed the term unlicensed
and replaced it with Licensed-Lite.  You can click on the links below to
review comments.

Thanks,

Rick Harnish

 

 

 

Wispa Members and List Users,

Yesterday, WISPA filed our Ex Parte Comments for FCC Docket 04-186,
Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands Additional Spectrum for
unlicensed devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz band.  The submission can
be found here
 .  Please review our comments first.  Jack Unger, Steve Coran
of Rini/Coran and the entire FCC Committee spent hours lobbying, discussing,
researching and writing these comments which encourage "Licensed-Lite" use
of the TV Whitespaces which will be opened up in Feb. 2009 due to the
Digital TV transition.  We owe all of these people many thanks and it is our
responsibility to support their efforts by submitting our support through
individual comments.

While reviewing the comments on the FCC website this morning, it became
apparent to me that there is stiff competition from the AV industry against
this proposal.  I reviewed nearly 300 comments from people all over the US
in opposition to this FCC proposal.  I did see several which supported the
use of these bands for Wireless Broadband but we are heavily outnumbered.
There are currently over 30,000 comments filed under this docket.  Others
see how important this is, our industry needs to understand it as well.

It is my responsibility to all of the WISP operators to encourage each of
you to file your comments in full support of the WISPA Ex Parte Comments or
at least partial support with clarification if you oppose some part of our
comments.  I will be filing my comments as soon as I finish this email.
This is a huge opportunity for each of us to help educate the FCC
commissioners on the importance of opening up this valuable spectrum to
"Licensed-Lite" operation for wireless broadband.  You can review all
comments at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websql/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.hts?ws_mode=ret
rieve_list
 &id_proceeding=04-186.

Please go to the ECFS website
  to file your comments today.  The deadline is
quickly approaching with the FCC Commissioners set to publicize the rules
for these bands on November 4th.  It is essential that you take 5-10 minutes
out of your busy schedule today or tomorrow to write and file your comments.

Rick Harnish

President

WISPA

 

 

Rick Harnish

General Manager - Midwest Region

Great American Broadband

260-827-2482

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

 
Just a quick follow up.

A quick search of the internet shows up a lot of devices.
(APC makes a few different types).
These are either called Dual AC Automatic Transfer Switch.
Or depending on your voltage needs, you could modify an  Dual AC power
supply module for Computer 
Or find a AC to DC rack mount powersupplies used in Telco's .
They are typically modular but big and heavy.

Many options.

Faisal Imtiaz
Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:02 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC swtich
for this purpose.


Thanks 


Faisal Imtiaz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease of
work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant, Side B to
Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.

 

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

 

Yes, you could do this

You will need to pick the right diode for the job.

But what brings this on?  

I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
(lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)

If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...



CHUCK PROFITO wrote: 

OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if one
failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from the
good one? 
Can that work?
 
Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing High Speed Broadband
to Rural Central California
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
 
Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on the poe
connection? -RickG
 
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  wrote:
  

Hello all
 
Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik routers
at
the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for options..
 
Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
 
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 
 
 





  

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 





  

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 


 
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  

 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.w

Re: [WISPA] cards

[Josh Luthman]

The other alternative I am aware of in that price range is the Engenius
cards which aren't that great IMO.

I have absolutely loved the Compex cards and the RB4xx series thus far.

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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer


On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> MT RB411
>
> Harold Bledsoe wrote:
> > What CPU board are you using as this may limit your options?
> >
> > -Hal
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List
> > 
> > Subject: [WISPA] cards
> > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:09:18 -0400
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are currently using the Compex WLM54-SAG23 cards for customer
> > radios... however, we are having a lot of failures with the cards (due
> > to static, etc.). Has anyone found a better card that is in the same
> > price range?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Travis
> > Microserv
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] cards

[Travis Johnson]

MT RB411

Harold Bledsoe wrote:
> What CPU board are you using as this may limit your options?
>
> -Hal
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List
> 
> Subject: [WISPA] cards
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:09:18 -0400
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We are currently using the Compex WLM54-SAG23 cards for customer
> radios... however, we are having a lot of failures with the cards (due
> to static, etc.). Has anyone found a better card that is in the same
> price range?
>
> thanks,
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Depending on how your sites are designed, APC makes a Dual Feed AC swtich
for this purpose.


Thanks 


Faisal Imtiaz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 8:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease of
work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant, Side B to
Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.

 

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

 

Yes, you could do this

You will need to pick the right diode for the job.

But what brings this on?  

I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
(lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)

If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...



CHUCK PROFITO wrote: 

OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if one
failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from the
good one? 
Can that work?
 
Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing High Speed Broadband
to Rural Central California
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
 
Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on the poe
connection? -RickG
 
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  wrote:
  

Hello all
 
Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik routers
at
the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for options..
 
Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
 
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 
 
 





  

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 





  

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 


 
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  

 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Ron Wallace]

I agree with you Marlon. There seems to be fewer instances where the membership 
is consulted on issues of importance regarding the FCC. 

Ron Wallace 
Hahnron, Inc. 
220 S. Jackson Dt. 
Addison, MI 49220 

Phone: (517)547-8410 
Mobile: (517)270-2410 
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
-Original Message-
From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 02:29 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [WISPA] Raining on the whitespaces parade

Hi All, As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first 
went there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical 
flaws in our proposals. I said much of this at the committee level but to no 
avail. First, let me say this though. The filing is masterful. It's a GREAT 
document. My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or the 
hard work that's gone into it. My heartburn is content based. Well, most of it 
is anyway. I have a problem with WISPA changing it's stance from unlicensed to 
licensed lite without having consulted with the membership on this issue. Our 
last team came back from DC and told us what our new position was. That's NOT 
what I help found WISPA for. I could have just stayed with a couple of the 
other associations that I've been a part of and been man handled like that. 
Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite 
concept. I just don't like having a committee that will make a maj
 or change without discussion before hand. If there was discussion that said we 
were going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I 
missed it. I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on 
by anyone when it came to an official stance. Not the way to run this railroad 
in my, not so, humble opinion. Now, to the whitespaces issue. I have MAJOR 
problems with the stance on adjacent channels. We give up 3 for 1 every time a 
TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area. A TV station goes live and 
we don't loose the channel that they are on, we loose it and 2 on each side. 
This means that in any market that has as little as 1/3rd of the channels in 
use by licensed operators (TV stations AND mics) will be totally useless for 
us. Why not simply set the out of band emissions standards high enough that we 
CAN use adjacent channels? I begged for that language, it satisfies both us and 
the broadcasters. I know it's not technically possib
 le today. So what? Just tonight as I was working on an AP I saw a customer 
connected at the 18meg speed with a signal level of -96. Who'd have imagined 
that would be possible just a couple of year ago? Next, I HATE geolocation 
as the only mechanism. I use circles on a map. I know how inaccurate they 
really are. They also change dramatically as the technology changes. When I 
started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size was the max. And if we got anywhere 
near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that also amped the receive signal by 
14ish dB we were oh so happy. Now I can go even further than that and get 2 to 
3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 watt or so. Same exact CPE units that were 
in place when we pulled the AP'd ap system out. Actual signal measurement is 
really the only way to accurately determine interference issues. Well, OK, I 
guess one could just put a large enough exclusion zone around the broadcasters 
to make sure that there is no interference. Unfortunately that
  also means we end up with even less market potential. Here is my idea for 
whitespaces. This is what I'll be personally filing. I'll fine tune it and 
likely add some ideas that slip my mind right now. I'm still more than a bit 
miffed that there wasn't even a vote on our filing (I know I'm whining, but I'm 
well and truly pissed). Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing 
mechanism can be found that will work. Lets be honest here guys. NO one knows 
IF the FCC will even allow white spaces use let alone with a sensing system. 
Just how much R and D do you think was put into this project in this economy? 
Sensing works great on $60 WiFi cards for God's sake! (Listen before talk, 
CSMAK.) It'll work for TV channels as well. It'll just take a little more time 
and effort. Set a high standard, one that will protect the licensed users and 
then let the market go to work on the problem. Once sales opportunities 
actually exist people will start working on ways to make this hap
 pen. Licensed lite is a great idea. There should be NO first in mechanism 
though. This leads to those with all of the money getting all of the prime 
slots and the rest of us sucking hind teet again. What we should do instead 
(and I floated this idea as well) is follow the Spectrum Policy Task Force's 
recommendation and implement time sharing too. All AP's should require either 
GPS sync or some mechanism that they do among any other AP's that they can 
hear. Each 

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Josh Luthman]

Similar to the last post what I often see is two UPS units coming from
two power grids/companies.



On 10/24/08, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease
> of work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant,
> Side B to Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.
>
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> 
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
>
>
> Yes, you could do this
>
> You will need to pick the right diode for the job.
>
> But what brings this on?
>
> I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
> (lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)
>
> If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
> rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...
>
>
>
> CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
>
> OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
> Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if
> one
> failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
> possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from
> the
> good one?
> Can that work?
>
> Chuck Profito
> 209-988-7388
> CV-ACCESS, INC
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Providing High Speed Broadband
> to Rural Central California
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of RickG
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
>
> Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on
> the poe connection? -RickG
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>   wrote:
>
>
>   Hello all
>   
>   Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik
> routers at
>   the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for
> options..
>   
>   Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
>   
>   Gino A. Villarini
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>   tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>   
>   
>   
>   
>   
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>   http://signup.wispa.org/
>   
>   
>
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>   
>   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>   
>   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   
>   
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


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

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Spammers or not?

[Jeff Broadwick]

I thought this thread was closed...
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Isp Operator
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:23 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Spammers or not?


And what the internet has told you, is that we AREN'T GOING TO ASK to remove
ourselves from lists we DIDN'T ASK TO BE ON.

What a JERK.


Butch Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> 
>> Personally, I don't mind if someone sends me a single UCE with 
>> something that relates to what I do.  I'm even more open to that sort 
>> of thing on our Sales@ or Info@ addresses.  What I ask is that I be 
>> removed as soon as I tell them I don't want their emails.
> 
> The thing that has ALWAYS been troublesome to me is getting off these 
> lists.  It is the reason, frankly, that I approached it as I did.  
> Either way, I'm not going to continue in this argument or discussion 
> (whatever term you want to apply).
> 
> I will say again to all on this list...if you want off the list I 
> created, you have but to ask.
> 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

[Gino Villarini]

We have a reason for this, we design our sites with dual power work ease
of work ...Side A and Side B.  Side A is connected to the UPS Plant,
Side B to Utility.  In Case Of UPS failure, we are not out.

 

Gino A. Villarini 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:44 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?

 

Yes, you could do this

You will need to pick the right diode for the job.

But what brings this on?  

I've had almost no PS failures that were not part of some major damage.
(lightning, power co. problem...  480V on 110V line)

If you are having many PS failures, you might look at the load vs the PS
rating.  Don't forget the radio cards...



CHUCK PROFITO wrote: 

OK guys, don't LOL, I'm just a farm boy, but...
Why couldn't you put two power supplies together into one plug, then if
one
failed the other would do full duty. Would a diode inline on both stop a
possible transformer shorting the other out or draining  the power from
the
good one? 
Can that work?
 
Chuck Profito
209-988-7388
CV-ACCESS, INC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Providing High Speed Broadband 
to Rural Central California
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of RickG
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:26 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Dual Power Supply, how to?
 
Why not use two power supplies, one on the dc jack and the other on
the poe connection? -RickG
 
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  wrote:
  

Hello all
 
Im looking for a way to add redundant power to my mikrotik
routers at
the towers,  The routers have a DC jack, so im looking for
options..
 
Anything available? Or would I have to make my own?
 
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
 
 
 
 





  

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 





  

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 


 
 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
 
 
 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
 
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
 
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
  

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Spammers or not?

[Isp Operator]

And what the internet has told you, is that we AREN'T GOING TO ASK to 
remove ourselves from lists we DIDN'T ASK TO BE ON.

What a JERK.


Butch Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> 
>> Personally, I don't mind if someone sends me a single UCE with 
>> something that relates to what I do.  I'm even more open to that 
>> sort of thing on our Sales@ or Info@ addresses.  What I ask is that 
>> I be removed as soon as I tell them I don't want their emails.
> 
> The thing that has ALWAYS been troublesome to me is getting off 
> these lists.  It is the reason, frankly, that I approached it as I 
> did.  Either way, I'm not going to continue in this argument or 
> discussion (whatever term you want to apply).
> 
> I will say again to all on this list...if you want off the list I 
> created, you have but to ask.
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] cards

[Harold Bledsoe]

What CPU board are you using as this may limit your options?

-Hal

-Original Message-
From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WISPA General List

Subject: [WISPA] cards
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:09:18 -0400



Hi,

We are currently using the Compex WLM54-SAG23 cards for customer
radios... however, we are having a lot of failures with the cards (due
to static, etc.). Has anyone found a better card that is in the same
price range?

thanks,

Travis
Microserv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] [FCC Committee] Raining on the whitespaces parade

[Jack Unger]

Marlon,

Good luck with your individual White Space filing.

I urge everyone who believes they have a better, a more constructive or 
a more practical idea than WISPA's filing to go to the FCC website and 
make an individual filing with the FCC immediately.

Here's the link to file  


It's important to file by next Tuesday, October 28th because that's the 
last day that the FCC is legally allowed to take Comments before they 
vote at their November 4th meeting.

Of course for those of you who believe that the WISPA filing IS good and 
that it DESERVES your support, you can go to the above link and simply 
say "I am a WISP and I support WISPA's  position". It's as easy as that.

Thank you. We appreciate everyones help.

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As a member of the FCC committee and a long term DC participant (first went 
> there as a WISP in 2001 or 2002) I feel I have to point out some critical 
> flaws in our proposals.  I said much of this at the committee level but to 
> no avail.
>
> First, let me say this though.  The filing is masterful.  It's a GREAT 
> document.  My heartburn has nothing to do with the document it's self or the 
> hard work that's gone into it.  My heartburn is content based.
>
> Well, most of it is anyway.  I have a problem with WISPA changing it's 
> stance from unlicensed to licensed lite without having consulted with the 
> membership on this issue.  Our last team came back from DC and told us what 
> our new position was.  That's NOT what I help found WISPA for.  I could have 
> just stayed with a couple of the other associations that I've been a part of 
> and been man handled like that.
>
> Lest anyone take this the wrong way, I happen to LIKE the licensed lite 
> concept.  I just don't like having a committee that will make a major change 
> without discussion before hand.  If there was discussion that said we were 
> going to move from unlicensed to licensed lite and I missed it then I missed 
> it.  I know there had been discussion about the idea but nothing voted on by 
> anyone when it came to an official stance.  Not the way to run this railroad 
> in my, not so, humble opinion.
>
> Now, to the whitespaces issue.
>
> I have MAJOR problems with the stance on adjacent channels.  We give up 3 
> for 1 every time a TV channel, or microphone etc. fires up in our area.  A 
> TV station goes live and we don't loose the channel that they are on, we 
> loose it and 2 on each side.  This means that in any market that has as 
> little as 1/3rd of the channels in use by licensed operators (TV stations 
> AND mics) will be totally useless for us.  Why not simply set the out of 
> band emissions standards high enough that we CAN use adjacent channels?  I 
> begged for that language, it satisfies both us and the broadcasters.  I know 
> it's not technically possible today.  So what?  Just tonight as I was 
> working on an AP I saw a customer connected at the 18meg speed with a signal 
> level of -96.  Who'd have imagined that would be possible just a couple of 
> year ago?
>
> Next, I HATE geolocation as the only mechanism.  I use circles on a map.  I 
> know how inaccurate they really are.  They also change dramatically as the 
> technology changes.  When I started my WISP in 2000 a 15 mile cell size was 
> the max.  And if we got anywhere near 1 meg with a 4 watt EIRP system that 
> also amped the receive signal by 14ish dB we were oh so happy.  Now I can go 
> even further than that and get 2 to 3 megs with NO amp and an eirp of 1 watt 
> or so.  Same exact CPE units that were in place when we pulled the AP'd ap 
> system out.  Actual signal measurement is really the only way to accurately 
> determine interference issues.  Well, OK, I guess one could just put a large 
> enough exclusion zone around the broadcasters to make sure that there is no 
> interference.  Unfortunately that also means we end up with even less market 
> potential.
>
> Here is my idea for whitespaces.  This is what I'll be personally filing. 
> I'll fine tune it and likely add some ideas that slip my mind right now. 
> I'm still more than a bit miffed that there wasn't even a vote on our filing 
> (I know I'm whining, but I'm well and truly pissed).
>
> Geolocation should be used until such time as a sensing mechanism can be 
> found that will work.  Lets be honest here guys.  NO one knows IF the FCC 
> will even allow white spaces use let alone with a sensing system.  Just how 
> much R and D do you think was put into this project in this economy? 
> Sensing works great on $60 WiFi cards for God's sake!  (Listen before talk, 
> CSMAK.)  It'll work for TV channels as well.  It'll just take a little more 
> time and effort.  Set a high standard, one that will protect the licensed 
> users and then let the market go to work on the problem.  Once sales 
> op