[WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were music to my ears. Then, the music turned to noise White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our broadband future. I can't agree more. He also said: Today’s decision is consequential to our nation’s future because wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and quality of life in even the remotest areas. Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY get it. Then, he went on to say this: Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in this order provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to provide an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this under-used spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that already make valuable use of the spectrum. WHAT? The most promise? I'm not horribly disappointed about the overall likely outcome of the rules, but how can he think that unlicensed at 100mW is going to maximize the use of anything? Unlicensed used has not been bad for us as WISPs in the past, but these power levels will not give us anywhere near the useful spectrum that the WISPA suggested licensed lite approach could have offered. I won't continue in disecting his statement since most of it was not something I am very positive about. All talk today centered around point-to-point deployments and nothing about ptmp. This is not a perfect scenario, but it's not a total loss. I strongly suggest that all interested parties (that's you if you are a WISP) at least read the statements and news release at http://www.fcc.gov/ and see for yourself. I don't think the decisions were a total loss. We did get geolocation, which is very important to WISPA's position. We also got adjacent channel space, which was very unexpected. The only real problems I see are the lack of sufficient power, which is because they chose unlicensed over license lite. Our FCC committee worked very hard to get us to this point. I don't think any of us realize how much time Jack Unger and Steve Coran put into this issue on our behalf over the past 2-3 weeks. If you have not personally thanked them, you really should take a minute to do so. My personal take on this is that they wanted to do something but not too much. I think I sense a new battleground forming when the new commission takes over next year. It is for this reason, that I urge ALL OF YOU (me, too) to do 3 things over the next few months: 1. If you are not already, become a WISPA member. We would not be at this point without your financial support. 2. If you have not already done so, become familiar with WHY the TVWS are (or will be) beneficial to you and your network. This will prepare you for the upcoming fight. 3. Join the debates which are sure to come over the next few weeks to help WISPA prepare to continue the fight for this most valuable of spectrums for our cause. --
Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
I would imagine you will be able to have receive signals down to almost -95 or -98 dBm. Remember this should be relatively clean spectrum (and hopefully stay that way). According to Sascha the current white space devices that were in testing were supposed to receive signals 30 db below the signal required to receive a DTV signal. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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] My mistake- WE WON!!!!!
(Possibly correcting things I said earlier.) The only official mention of power limits is 40 mW for adjacent channel use and higher power in non-adjacent channels. This on Page 2 of Commissioner Tate's statements. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Board Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] My mistake- WE WON! Guys, I just got word that 100mw was only for personal portable. FCC proposed rules also includes a provision for 5 Watts Fixed deployment!! WooHoo Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 10:11 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win Yes, I agree 4 Watts would have been a huge victory, but we didn't get 4 watts. It appears that we got 100mw EIRP, which is worthless for anything other than short range personal portable devices. It appears that we got shut out. At 100mw, they might have well just auctioned it to the RBOCs, at least consumers would have had a chance to get broadband that way. We'll have to see what the rules actually say tommorrow. Maybe the Arcticle writer misunderstood, and it was 100mw radio power and 4 watts could be achieved with antenna gain. But unforutneately, I don't think so. We'll see. If it is really only 100mw EIRP, we'll need to get back up on the lobby floor, and fight for more TX power. My personal opinion is that it should still be possible to convince the FCC to allow 4 watts. I think the unlicensed community originally wanted more power also. And Geolocation w/ database meets the broadcaster's requirements. Broadcasters already endorsed 20w on non-adjacenet channels. There was no sound reason to deny 4 watts on non-adjacent channels, unless there is a conspiracy against WISPs. Its also possible that the FCC got confused by WISPA's message, misinterpretting that we wanted low power in unlicensed. The FCC left the door open for further comment on whether higher power licensed should be allowed in rural areas. At this point, I think it will end up being to WISP's best interest to jump back on the Unlicensed bandwagon, where there is FCC support, and lobby for 4watts. But I'm gonna stop talking, as I'm getting all worked up, before I have all the facts posted to the public tommorrow. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win I can make do with 4 watts EIRP if that is what we end up with. If the is the only thing we didn't get, I would say we pitched a shutout. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:13 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win Useful power levels in the whitespaces. B UT, we've not seen the actual rules from the FCC yet. It's entirely possible that the rules will be better than what's being reported so far. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win What exactly didn't we win? - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] Looks like we didn't win http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/110408-fcc-whilte-spaces.html :( 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/
Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
I chose -80 because in current operations, anything less isn't really utilizing the available spectrum. I try to engineer all of my links for full modulation. Anything less is a waste. I know -80 isn't full modulation, but it's not far away. Perhaps with more clean spectrum, receivers will be better, but the same was said about 3650 and that hasn't materialized. When browsing around on Channel Master's site that one of their DACs required -83 to -5 dBm with a SNR of 15 dB to operate. If TVWS devices are supposed to receive 30 dB below TV, then we should be able to receive signals that are -113 dBm. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:20 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would imagine you will be able to have receive signals down to almost -95 or -98 dBm. Remember this should be relatively clean spectrum (and hopefully stay that way). According to Sascha the current white space devices that were in testing were supposed to receive signals 30 db below the signal required to receive a DTV signal. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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/
[WISPA] FCC Adopts Rules For Unlicensed Use of Television White Spaces.
11/4/08 FCC Adopts Rules For Unlicensed Use of Television White Spaces. News Release: Word | Acrobat Martin Statement: Word | Acrobat Copps Statement: Word | Acrobat Adelstein Statement: Word | Acrobat Tate Statement: Word | Acrobat McDowell Statement: Word | Acrobat -- 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Obviously we are still speculating here because the rules are certainly not clear. With technology development and the results I am hearing from those who are using WiMax equipment, I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. To assume TVWS will always get full modulation and then try to also claim that it is the most cost affective way to reach the low population density areas will be difficult. Site footprints have to be looked at lowest modulation rates because that RF signal is still out there. It is important to look at how far that signal will still be traveling even though you can't achieve full rates. The transmitted carrier will still be out there as part of the contour for your base and must be considered in the process of registration. Your footprint will still be very large even though you don't prefer to operate at the slower rates, which for others would be noise. To design a network with site footprints and spacing to achieve only full rates is an inefficient of spectrum because your undesired signal is still traveling a great distance preventing others from reusing that same spectrum. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I chose -80 because in current operations, anything less isn't really utilizing the available spectrum. I try to engineer all of my links for full modulation. Anything less is a waste. I know -80 isn't full modulation, but it's not far away. Perhaps with more clean spectrum, receivers will be better, but the same was said about 3650 and that hasn't materialized. When browsing around on Channel Master's site that one of their DACs required -83 to -5 dBm with a SNR of 15 dB to operate. If TVWS devices are supposed to receive 30 dB below TV, then we should be able to receive signals that are -113 dBm. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:20 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would imagine you will be able to have receive signals down to almost -95 or -98 dBm. Remember this should be relatively clean spectrum (and hopefully stay that way). According to Sascha the current white space devices that were in testing were supposed to receive signals 30 db below the signal required to receive a DTV signal. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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:
Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Hmmm Just for fun I ran the numbers at 600mhz. 20 dB tx from the radio, 16dB tx antenna (probably not at all reasonable due to size and small 50ish* coverage) to a 10 dB cpe antenna. -80 at 50 miles! Same thing with an 8dB (say omni) would be 20 miles at -80. The sad part though? We can do that with today's wifi gear! 20 miles is pretty easy in the open. Now lets run this at the WISPA 20 WATT level. That's 43dB eirp. So, 35dB tx power and 8dB omni to 10dB cpe antenna. I get -80 at 100 miles! Now we're talkin! The next question that has to be answered. What is the receive signal of the average TV set these days? What does it need to be able to pick up a signal? We need to know that number if we're to come up with a non interfering OOB level that we can suggest to the FCC. This is why people need to join wispa. We have to fight this fight. They are still looking at what to do with us it sounds like. We have to be ready to go back there again. We need to show them pictures of our areas, demographics, screen shots of all of the wifi devices we pick up at our ap's. etc. etc. etc. Pretty cool. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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] SR5 vs. XR5
That's because of the Atheros chipset at heart. The SR and CM9 cards use the 5004 chipset, the XR and other radios such as the R52 use the 5006 chipset. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: cw [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 6:59 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5 It's not the output power that differentiates SR radios from XR radios. We got better quality links from 100mW CM9s than SR cards. The XR radios are finer grained and hear better. Mario Pommier wrote: what is the output of those cards? the xr5 are 600mW aren't they? aren't the sr5 400mW? *600mW (28dBm) 400mW (26dBm)* the posted results seem accurate. Mario Mike Hammett wrote: The XR radios listen better than the SR radios do. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Scott Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 2:55 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] SR5 vs. XR5 What I have seen is not so much an improvement in the receive db reading as in the CCQ. I don't remember how much it changed, but I have a couple of links that were having issues with intermittent drops that went away with the XR5 cards. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, It's a 2 hour drive (each way) and requires taking the link down (again). I have XR5 cards sitting on my desk... but if I'm only going to see 1db of improvement, it's not worth 5 hours of time. ;) Travis Microserv D. Ryan Spott wrote: You could just toss the cards in there and do a quick configure. $216 for the parts should be easy to show on the books. :) ryan Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Can anyone provide any real-world experience where they replaced SR5 cards with XR5 cards on a point to point link? We have a 15 mile shot (using MT) that is just _barely_ line of site enough to establish a link. I am just wondering how much increase in signal we would see by switching cards? 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1765 - Release Date: 11/3/2008 4:59 PM -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 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] p2p blocking, throttling, mikrotik
I really like the mangle and queue tree idea, too. My template is a bit different (as is everyones =) but the principle remains. 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 Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:52 AM, RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMO, the best thing I've done to my network is switch to a Mikrotik firewall and prioritize traffic. I friend of mine offered a sample script whcih I have attached. Obviously, you need to tweak it to fit your needs. -RickG On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:24 AM, RC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I try and block ptp traffic through my mikrotik router customers call in telling us some web pages load some don't. Myspace, yahoo, etc. Anyone know how to block or throttle p2p without affecting regular web traffic? 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] 5GHz signal generator? maybe a poor mans SG?
We're in need of a 5-6GHz signal generator to simultaneously span a large portion of the 5GHz band to roughly tune some RF filters. Right now we're using some 802.11a cards we're having to link them up and do bandwidth tests to get them to 'fill up' on a RhodeSwartz SA (I suppose it's an expected result). Also we don't have the signal generator option for the SA either :-( 1. Anyone know a good way (maybe using linux, windows, or Mikrotik software) to get the cards to transmit fairly constant without having to have them connect to an SM/AP? 2. Otherwise a time/cost effective option to use another method, any recommendations to buy/rent a real signal generator? Thanks! Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. 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] Another feather in the hat of providers of unlimited service
ATT to start trialing bit caps. Maybe this will give us some leverage in DSL saturated markets. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153301/atandt_trialing_dsl _bandwidth_caps.html __ Patrick Nix, Jr., csweb.net (918) 235-0414 http://www.csweb.net http://www.csweb.net/ E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATTENTION: This e-mail may contain information that is confidential in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the sender immediately. Thank you. 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
I could see 16 dB sectors. Of course they will be large, but that's what it takes at these frequencies. We'll have antennas the same size as the broadcast TV antennas are now (I've seen some over 40' tall). Hopefully a manufacturer can work something out with regards to not having to have 4x 40' sectors on a tower to provide the needed coverage... that could result in some tasty rates. I don't think the number of wifi devices we see is a useful argument. Their response is 3.65 and 5.4 GHz... plenty of new space and no wifi devices. We need to stress the penetration abilities and the need for copious amounts of spectrum that has these penetration abilities. I believe these lower frequencies will help fill in coverage gaps within any given range. We may not have any more range with TVWS vs. existing bands with equal EIRP because of smaller antenna requirements, but buildings and trees no longer make that coverage spotty. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:50 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Hmmm Just for fun I ran the numbers at 600mhz. 20 dB tx from the radio, 16dB tx antenna (probably not at all reasonable due to size and small 50ish* coverage) to a 10 dB cpe antenna. -80 at 50 miles! Same thing with an 8dB (say omni) would be 20 miles at -80. The sad part though? We can do that with today's wifi gear! 20 miles is pretty easy in the open. Now lets run this at the WISPA 20 WATT level. That's 43dB eirp. So, 35dB tx power and 8dB omni to 10dB cpe antenna. I get -80 at 100 miles! Now we're talkin! The next question that has to be answered. What is the receive signal of the average TV set these days? What does it need to be able to pick up a signal? We need to know that number if we're to come up with a non interfering OOB level that we can suggest to the FCC. This is why people need to join wispa. We have to fight this fight. They are still looking at what to do with us it sounds like. We have to be ready to go back there again. We need to show them pictures of our areas, demographics, screen shots of all of the wifi devices we pick up at our ap's. etc. etc. etc. Pretty cool. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 06:50:45AM -0800, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hmmm Just for fun I ran the numbers at 600mhz. 20 dB tx from the radio, 16dB tx antenna (probably not at all reasonable due to size and small 50ish* coverage) to a 10 dB cpe antenna. -80 at 50 miles! Same thing with an 8dB (say omni) would be 20 miles at -80. The sad part though? We can do that with today's wifi gear! 20 miles is pretty easy in the open. 2.4 is of limited use in scenes like this, where 90% of the houses are not visible from a hilltop or tower. http://www.f64.nu/albums2007/album114/DSC1595.jpg I don't need 50 miles. It would be overloaded in short order unless I charged by the byte like the cell companies. I want 2-6 miles and good woods penetration. I'm kinda pleased the have the new frequencies as unlicensed. Sure licensed lite would be nice, but unlicensed means inexpensive commodity equipment. That used to mean junk, but now, it's now there are diamonds in the rough developing for commodity based unlicensed equipment. Now lets run this at the WISPA 20 WATT level. That's 43dB eirp. So, 35dB tx power and 8dB omni to 10dB cpe antenna. I get -80 at 100 miles! Now we're talkin! The next question that has to be answered. What is the receive signal of the average TV set these days? What does it need to be able to pick up a signal? We need to know that number if we're to come up with a non interfering OOB level that we can suggest to the FCC. This is why people need to join wispa. We have to fight this fight. They are still looking at what to do with us it sounds like. We have to be ready to go back there again. We need to show them pictures of our areas, demographics, screen shots of all of the wifi devices we pick up at our ap's. etc. etc. etc. Pretty cool. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ| Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.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] 5GHz signal generator? maybe a poor mans SG?
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Jon Langeler wrote: 1. Anyone know a good way (maybe using linux, windows, or Mikrotik software) to get the cards to transmit fairly constant without having to have them connect to an SM/AP? You can use alignment mode in Mikrotik. Just set up the MT as the transmitter side and it will be very near constant transmissions. -- * 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/
[WISPA] Mikrotik: how to restore backups to identical hardware
My network has a couple dozen RouterOS systems (mostly small RouterBoards) doing a number of jobs, from simple routing and DHCP server to this is a vital backhaul link. I kinda know my way around networking concepts, so should a board fail, replacing it is easy enough. And none of our configurations are overly complex, so rebuilding one from scratch, as it were, rarely takes more than a half-hour. I'd like to make that process even more simple, though. I know RouterOS has two sorta-backup tools built-in. You can log into the terminal and run /export which will dump the whole configuration in a mostly-readable format. You can also run /system export save and get the same thing in a much bigger binary format. The problem I have is that these backups seem to be very hardware-dependent. Today, I was trying to reproduce the configuration of two radios I already had in the air; I thought it would be simple enough. Download the configuration from the existing ones, upload it to the new ones, change IP addresses and SSIDs, and call it a day. Turns out so much of the configuration is tied to things like the MAC address of a given radio card or Ethernet interface, that after twenty minutes of trying to correct addresses to match the new hardware, it was easier just to start over. I can do this, but what if I get hit by a bus which subsequently careens into a tower, so someone else has to? Any suggestions on better ways to back up configurations from RouterOS devices, so I can subsequently restore them to identical (but different) hardware, would be appreciated. David Smith MVN.net 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] Mikrotik: how to restore backups to identical hardware
Backup does require nearly identical equipment. I have some scripts that I use to export the parts that change, rather than the entire configuration. The problem with export is that it saves MAC addresses on interfaces. If you just delete the mac=xxx part of the interfaces, you can usually import the rest directly into a new board. There is one more caveat. Some of the configuration words changed from 2.9 to 3.x. If you are changing versions when changing boards, there are some things that won't load. What I do is open the export in notepad. I then copy the sections to the clipboard and then paste them in the new machine. When there is an error, I determine what needs to be changed, do a global search and replace in notepad and paste it again. Even this can be much faster than rebuilding from scratch. David E. Smith wrote: My network has a couple dozen RouterOS systems (mostly small RouterBoards) doing a number of jobs, from simple routing and DHCP server to this is a vital backhaul link. I kinda know my way around networking concepts, so should a board fail, replacing it is easy enough. And none of our configurations are overly complex, so rebuilding one from scratch, as it were, rarely takes more than a half-hour. I'd like to make that process even more simple, though. I know RouterOS has two sorta-backup tools built-in. You can log into the terminal and run /export which will dump the whole configuration in a mostly-readable format. You can also run /system export save and get the same thing in a much bigger binary format. The problem I have is that these backups seem to be very hardware-dependent. Today, I was trying to reproduce the configuration of two radios I already had in the air; I thought it would be simple enough. Download the configuration from the existing ones, upload it to the new ones, change IP addresses and SSIDs, and call it a day. Turns out so much of the configuration is tied to things like the MAC address of a given radio card or Ethernet interface, that after twenty minutes of trying to correct addresses to match the new hardware, it was easier just to start over. I can do this, but what if I get hit by a bus which subsequently careens into a tower, so someone else has to? Any suggestions on better ways to back up configurations from RouterOS devices, so I can subsequently restore them to identical (but different) hardware, would be appreciated. David Smith MVN.net 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date: 11/5/2008 7:17 AM -- Scott Reed Owner NewWays Networking, LLC Wireless Networking Network Design, Installation and Administration Mikrotik Advanced Certified www.nwwnet.net (765) 855-1060 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] Mikrotik: how to restore backups to identical hardware
Scott Reed wrote: Backup does require nearly identical equipment. Not a problem; we really only use two or three boards here, and spares generally are readily available. The problem is, I want to make this simple enough for the receptionist to do. Go edit a bunch of MAC addresses from this 500-line config file, cut-and-pasting a few lines at a time doesn't quite fall into that category. (The above is my current backup plan, combined with a script from the RouterOS wiki, installed on every device, that just emails me its configuration once a week. It's kinda sorta passable, and definitely better than nothing, but nowhere near the ease of backing up 3/4 of the other devices on my network.) David Smith MVN.net 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] WISPA Website FCC Press Release and Commissioner Comments
Rick Harnish wrote: http://www.wispa.org/?p=311 Does anyone have a link to the report and order? 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] Mikrotik: how to restore backups to identical hardware
If we could get a cisco-like restore-from-text-file system it would be perfect! ryan Scott Reed wrote: Backup does require nearly identical equipment. I have some scripts that I use to export the parts that change, rather than the entire configuration. The problem with export is that it saves MAC addresses on interfaces. If you just delete the mac=xxx part of the interfaces, you can usually import the rest directly into a new board. There is one more caveat. Some of the configuration words changed from 2.9 to 3.x. If you are changing versions when changing boards, there are some things that won't load. What I do is open the export in notepad. I then copy the sections to the clipboard and then paste them in the new machine. When there is an error, I determine what needs to be changed, do a global search and replace in notepad and paste it again. Even this can be much faster than rebuilding from scratch. David E. Smith wrote: My network has a couple dozen RouterOS systems (mostly small RouterBoards) doing a number of jobs, from simple routing and DHCP server to this is a vital backhaul link. I kinda know my way around networking concepts, so should a board fail, replacing it is easy enough. And none of our configurations are overly complex, so rebuilding one from scratch, as it were, rarely takes more than a half-hour. I'd like to make that process even more simple, though. I know RouterOS has two sorta-backup tools built-in. You can log into the terminal and run /export which will dump the whole configuration in a mostly-readable format. You can also run /system export save and get the same thing in a much bigger binary format. The problem I have is that these backups seem to be very hardware-dependent. Today, I was trying to reproduce the configuration of two radios I already had in the air; I thought it would be simple enough. Download the configuration from the existing ones, upload it to the new ones, change IP addresses and SSIDs, and call it a day. Turns out so much of the configuration is tied to things like the MAC address of a given radio card or Ethernet interface, that after twenty minutes of trying to correct addresses to match the new hardware, it was easier just to start over. I can do this, but what if I get hit by a bus which subsequently careens into a tower, so someone else has to? Any suggestions on better ways to back up configurations from RouterOS devices, so I can subsequently restore them to identical (but different) hardware, would be appreciated. David Smith MVN.net 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.6/1769 - Release Date: 11/5/2008 7:17 AM 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
No but they will be about 20 feet high for an H pol 600 MHz slotted waveguide 16 dBi 120 degree sector. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I could see 16 dB sectors. Of course they will be large, but that's what it takes at these frequencies. We'll have antennas the same size as the broadcast TV antennas are now (I've seen some over 40' tall). Hopefully a manufacturer can work something out with regards to not having to have 4x 40' sectors on a tower to provide the needed coverage... that could result in some tasty rates. I don't think the number of wifi devices we see is a useful argument. Their response is 3.65 and 5.4 GHz... plenty of new space and no wifi devices. We need to stress the penetration abilities and the need for copious amounts of spectrum that has these penetration abilities. I believe these lower frequencies will help fill in coverage gaps within any given range. We may not have any more range with TVWS vs. existing bands with equal EIRP because of smaller antenna requirements, but buildings and trees no longer make that coverage spotty. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:50 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Hmmm Just for fun I ran the numbers at 600mhz. 20 dB tx from the radio, 16dB tx antenna (probably not at all reasonable due to size and small 50ish* coverage) to a 10 dB cpe antenna. -80 at 50 miles! Same thing with an 8dB (say omni) would be 20 miles at -80. The sad part though? We can do that with today's wifi gear! 20 miles is pretty easy in the open. Now lets run this at the WISPA 20 WATT level. That's 43dB eirp. So, 35dB tx power and 8dB omni to 10dB cpe antenna. I get -80 at 100 miles! Now we're talkin! The next question that has to be answered. What is the receive signal of the average TV set these days? What does it need to be able to pick up a signal? We need to know that number if we're to come up with a non interfering OOB level that we can suggest to the FCC. This is why people need to join wispa. We have to fight this fight. They are still looking at what to do with us it sounds like. We have to be ready to go back there again. We need to show them pictures of our areas, demographics, screen shots of all of the wifi devices we pick up at our ap's. etc. etc. etc. Pretty cool. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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
Re: [WISPA] 5GHz signal generator? maybe a poor mans SG?
I would suggest a noise generator. Here is an article on a do it yourself unit. http://www.ham-radio.com/sbms/sd/nfsource.htm Using a noise generator that is pretty flat and a spectrum analyzer is one of the easiest ways to tune filters if you don't have a sweep generator. - Original Message - From: Jon Langeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:28 AM Subject: [WISPA] 5GHz signal generator? maybe a poor mans SG? We're in need of a 5-6GHz signal generator to simultaneously span a large portion of the 5GHz band to roughly tune some RF filters. Right now we're using some 802.11a cards we're having to link them up and do bandwidth tests to get them to 'fill up' on a RhodeSwartz SA (I suppose it's an expected result). Also we don't have the signal generator option for the SA either :-( 1. Anyone know a good way (maybe using linux, windows, or Mikrotik software) to get the cards to transmit fairly constant without having to have them connect to an SM/AP? 2. Otherwise a time/cost effective option to use another method, any recommendations to buy/rent a real signal generator? Thanks! Jon Langeler Michwave Tech. 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] SR2 overload
Hi, Does anyone know at what signal level and SR2 card would become overloaded on the receiver? I can't find that spec on their datasheet. We have a customer on an AP that has a -27 RSSI and this AP is acting very strange. It's been this way for over a month with no issues, but the weather just got colder as well. 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] 5GHz signal generator? maybe a poor mans SG?
To use this alignment mode on a ptp link would you do that on ap or station side? Brian Butch Evans wrote: On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Jon Langeler wrote: 1. Anyone know a good way (maybe using linux, windows, or Mikrotik software) to get the cards to transmit fairly constant without having to have them connect to an SM/AP? You can use alignment mode in Mikrotik. Just set up the MT as the transmitter side and it will be very near constant transmissions. 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. I'm a little confused on that statement. With our Aperto live testing a few years back (pre-wimax), the best modulation we could get was qam16 at the -85 levels. And that was before considering the 25db SNR required above the noise. What good is sensitivity, if the noise ends up being higher than the sensitivity? Sure TV broadcasters shot for -120, but thats one direction broadcasting, with no expense cut for technology. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Obviously we are still speculating here because the rules are certainly not clear. With technology development and the results I am hearing from those who are using WiMax equipment, I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. To assume TVWS will always get full modulation and then try to also claim that it is the most cost affective way to reach the low population density areas will be difficult. Site footprints have to be looked at lowest modulation rates because that RF signal is still out there. It is important to look at how far that signal will still be traveling even though you can't achieve full rates. The transmitted carrier will still be out there as part of the contour for your base and must be considered in the process of registration. Your footprint will still be very large even though you don't prefer to operate at the slower rates, which for others would be noise. To design a network with site footprints and spacing to achieve only full rates is an inefficient of spectrum because your undesired signal is still traveling a great distance preventing others from reusing that same spectrum. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I chose -80 because in current operations, anything less isn't really utilizing the available spectrum. I try to engineer all of my links for full modulation. Anything less is a waste. I know -80 isn't full modulation, but it's not far away. Perhaps with more clean spectrum, receivers will be better, but the same was said about 3650 and that hasn't materialized. When browsing around on Channel Master's site that one of their DACs required -83 to -5 dBm with a SNR of 15 dB to operate. If TVWS devices are supposed to receive 30 dB below TV, then we should be able to receive signals that are -113 dBm. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:20 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would imagine you will be able to have receive signals down to almost -95 or -98 dBm. Remember this should be relatively clean spectrum (and hopefully stay that way). According to Sascha the current white space devices that were in testing were supposed to receive signals 30 db below the signal required to receive a DTV signal. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM To: WISPA List Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were music to my ears. Then, the music turned to noise White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our broadband future. I can't agree more. He also said: Today’s decision is consequential to our nation’s future because wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and quality of life in even the remotest areas. Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY get it. Then, he went on to say this: Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in this order provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to provide an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this under-used spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that already make valuable use of the spectrum. WHAT? The most promise? I'm not horribly disappointed about the overall likely outcome of the rules, but how can he think that unlicensed at 100mW is going to maximize the use of anything? Unlicensed used has not been bad for us as WISPs in the past, but these power levels will not give us anywhere near the useful spectrum that the WISPA suggested licensed lite approach could have offered. I won't continue in disecting his statement since most of it was not something I am very positive about. All talk today centered around point-to-point deployments and nothing about ptmp. This is not a perfect scenario, but it's not a total loss. I strongly suggest that all interested parties (that's you if you are a WISP) at least read the statements and news release at http://www.fcc.gov/ and see for yourself. I don't think the decisions were a total loss. We did get geolocation, which is very important to WISPA's position. We also got adjacent channel space, which was very unexpected. The only real problems I see are the lack of sufficient power, which is because they chose unlicensed over license lite. Our FCC committee worked very hard to get us to this point. I don't think any of us realize how much time Jack Unger and Steve Coran put into this issue on our behalf over the past 2-3 weeks. If you have not personally thanked them, you really should take a minute to do so. My personal take on this is that they wanted to do something but not too much. I think I sense a new battleground forming when the new commission takes over next year. It is
Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
That's my point, the noise will be much lower in these bands if things are deployed in a sane way. Wimax gear has receive sensitivity in the -93 to -98 range and from the reports I have heard, works very well at those levels. While a WISP may be trying to set a network up for max modulation, the FCC will look at the contour a whitespace station creates in a much different way. It will be based on the RF energy it creates, not the signal margin above the receiver threshold needed to achieve the better modulation rate. If you map a realistic footprint based on a signal level down as low as -98, that might be closer to the contour they will create in their geolocation database. This contour will be the one they use to see if you will encroach on any TV contour or other protected/semi protected users of the spectrum. The WISP operator will not get to determine the contour limits based on their own desired modulation rate. I was saying that you should be able to use the -90 number in your mapping to get a more realistic sense of where the signal will be going and what size polygon you might have to deal with as you register it in a geolocation database. Remember, even though you may not agree that a particular signal level is adequate for your purposes at a certain level, the signal that still remains on the air at the lower levels, will be an interfering/undesired signal to all other systems. The FCC is charged with managing the total signal emitted, it's affects over distance, and the other users of the spectrum. They have the big picture to look at, while as a WISP it can be easy to overlook those other factors. I am not sure what the signal level will be that the FCC determines must be protected for TV receivers, but whatever that number is you would be wise to do RF plots that show signal down to that level. It may not be useable as a data network but it will certainly be able to bother TV reception at that level. WISP use of whitespaces will be a secondary use to LICENSED users of the band. And homeowners with off air TV reception will be considered licensed in this case. That is a different mindset from what most are used to. It will create the need for different thinking when planning a network. This is not bad news, just a new and different way to think about your RF planning. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. I'm a little confused on that statement. With our Aperto live testing a few years back (pre-wimax), the best modulation we could get was qam16 at the -85 levels. And that was before considering the 25db SNR required above the noise. What good is sensitivity, if the noise ends up being higher than the sensitivity? Sure TV broadcasters shot for -120, but thats one direction broadcasting, with no expense cut for technology. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Obviously we are still speculating here because the rules are certainly not clear. With technology development and the results I am hearing from those who are using WiMax equipment, I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. To assume TVWS will always get full modulation and then try to also claim that it is the most cost affective way to reach the low population density areas will be difficult. Site footprints have to be looked at lowest modulation rates because that RF signal is still out there. It is important to look at how far that signal will still be traveling even though you can't achieve full rates. The transmitted carrier will still be out there as part of the contour for your base and must be considered in the process of registration. Your footprint will still be very large even though you don't prefer to operate at the slower rates, which for others would be noise. To design a network with site footprints and spacing to achieve only full rates is an inefficient of spectrum because your undesired signal is still traveling a great distance preventing others from reusing that same spectrum. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I chose -80 because in current operations, anything less isn't really utilizing the available spectrum. I try to engineer all of my links for full modulation.
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were music to my ears. Then, the music turned to noise White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our broadband future. I can't agree more. He also said: Today?s decision is consequential to our nation?s future because wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and quality of life in even the remotest areas. Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY get it. Then, he went on to say this: Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in this order provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to provide an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this under-used spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that already make valuable use of the spectrum. WHAT? The most promise? I'm not horribly disappointed about the overall likely outcome of the rules, but how can he think that unlicensed at 100mW is going to maximize the use of anything? Unlicensed used has not been bad for us as WISPs in the past, but these power levels will not give us anywhere near the useful spectrum that the WISPA suggested licensed lite approach could have offered. I won't continue in disecting his statement since most of it was not something I am very positive about. All talk today centered around point-to-point deployments and nothing about ptmp. This is not a perfect scenario, but it's not a total loss. I strongly suggest that all interested parties (that's you if you are a WISP) at least read the statements and news release at http://www.fcc.gov/ and see for yourself. I don't think the decisions were a total loss. We did get geolocation, which is very important to WISPA's position. We also got adjacent channel space, which was very unexpected. The only real problems I see are the lack of sufficient power, which is
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Commissioner Adelstein has long been a pretty good friend of our industry. In truth, I have not always agreed with him, but in his comments today he made a couple of statements that were music to my ears. Then, the music turned to noise White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our broadband future. I can't agree more. He also said: Today?s decision is consequential to our nation?s future because wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and quality of life in even the remotest areas. Again, when I heard this, I thought he must REALLY get it. Then, he went on to say this: Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most promise for maximizing the use of white spaces. Our balanced
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa List wireless@wispa.org Cc: WISPA Members List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Commissioner Adelstein has
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Speaking of that, who do you use for your FCC licensing/coordination on these links, or do you do it in-house? Randy Chuck McCown - 2 wrote: There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't survive without adequate power. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Wispa
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can survive in UNlicensed we've done it from day one, but we can't
[WISPA] standoffs
Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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] standoffs
We're a computer store so we have zillions of those little threaded metal standoffs used for computer motherboards. I believe Cyberguys sells them in bulk as well, and we just buy the nuts for them from a local hardware store. Just do a search for standoff. Anyone seen a case where routerboard will not power up though after being mounted in a case, and if you take it out, it works on the bench again? - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] standoffs Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
We have an FCC attorney in Virginia do it for us. - Original Message - From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Speaking of that, who do you use for your FCC licensing/coordination on these links, or do you do it in-house? Randy Chuck McCown - 2 wrote: There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change 100mw to 4w (at least for non-adjacent channels), and it'll be fixed. We can
Re: [WISPA] standoffs
I had a computer motherboard do that to me... It was a grounding issue of some sort I later figured out Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] standoffs We're a computer store so we have zillions of those little threaded metal standoffs used for computer motherboards. I believe Cyberguys sells them in bulk as well, and we just buy the nuts for them from a local hardware store. Just do a search for standoff. Anyone seen a case where routerboard will not power up though after being mounted in a case, and if you take it out, it works on the bench again? - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] standoffs Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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] standoffs
we use 4-40 machine screws with 2 nuts and a nylon spacer. screw backplate nut nylon spacer board nut works well. locktite the nut on the backplate I like your idea a bit better, but I've not had the time to dig for them and what we have works well. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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] standoffs
Yes. was a short from a nut to the backplate. Doug Ratcliffe wrote: We're a computer store so we have zillions of those little threaded metal standoffs used for computer motherboards. I believe Cyberguys sells them in bulk as well, and we just buy the nuts for them from a local hardware store. Just do a search for "standoff". Anyone seen a case where routerboard will not power up though after being mounted in a case, and if you take it out, it works on the bench again? - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] standoffs Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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] standoffs
I like the plastic feet sold by Streakwave, Titan Wireless, etc On 11/5/08, Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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/ -- Sent from my mobile device 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] standoffs
We make and sell the aluminum ones. Hit me off list if you need more info. Thanks, Mike Goicoechea -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] standoffs Hi, Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and then machine threaded screws. Or, if there is something better, let me know. 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/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1762 - Release Date: 11/4/2008 9:38 PM 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree beamwidth? Tom DeReggi Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Interesting Why a FCC attorney instead of the typical Freq Coordination Engineering companies? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... We have an FCC attorney in Virginia do it for us. - Original Message - From: Randy Cosby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Speaking of that, who do you use for your FCC licensing/coordination on these links, or do you do it in-house? Randy Chuck McCown - 2 wrote: There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
So I guess satellite earth station minimum size requirements would really make a barrier to entry. I think we had to have a 21 foot dish minimum for an inmarsat uplink... By the same logic should I be pissed at that requirement? If you interfere with my 6 GHz system, E-911 links die, critical air traffic control circuits die, people can die. Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree beamwidth? Tom DeReggi Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04,
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Moreover, 6 GHz hardware is my most expensive stuff. I can get 11 GHz dragonwave at a much lower cost and it will do more than 6 GHz for most applications. Plus have all the perqs of license and exclusivity etc. - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent:
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? If you've ever manned the phones during an outage, you'd understand that internet access IS that critical. Either a customer is paying $29.95/month for the link and is losing thousands of dollars per day while the internet is down or things even worse are happening. :-) -- * 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
We actually (used to ) address this very subject in a faq page about our service where we say we will be unmoved by tearful pleas and threats about how much the outage is costing them. We also tell them if it that important, they need to be on some other type of infrastructure, perhaps with route diversity. I just went looking for the verbiage but it appears our new web template work has eliminated it. Probably just as well... - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? If you've ever manned the phones during an outage, you'd understand that internet access IS that critical. Either a customer is paying $29.95/month for the link and is losing thousands of dollars per day while the internet is down or things even worse are happening. :-) -- * 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/ 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Oh, and don't discount the on line day traders, poker players and ebayers that are losing those thousands and thousands. I openly laughed at one day trader that complained, this was back in the early days of our venture and he said he had already lost $2600 that morning. I told him to go lease a T1 from Qwest if it is that critical. Of course the answer was no way can I afford something like that. - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? If you've ever manned the phones during an outage, you'd understand that internet access IS that critical. Either a customer is paying $29.95/month for the link and is losing thousands of dollars per day while the internet is down or things even worse are happening. :-) -- * 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/ 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I believe all of Trango's licensed equipment (6ghz, 11ghz, 18ghz, 23ghz) is the same price. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Moreover, 6 GHz hardware is my most expensive stuff. I can get 11 GHz dragonwave at a much lower cost and it will do more than 6 GHz for most applications. Plus have all the perqs of license and exclusivity etc. - Original Message - From: "Brad Belton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'WISPA General List'" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed" links are for the birds. The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Brad Belton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'WISPA General List'" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
We brought down E911 service on a tower 100ft away from our tower with a $150 Mikrotik board... so that isn't much of a reason either. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: So I guess satellite earth station minimum size requirements would really make a barrier to entry. I think we had to have a 21 foot dish minimum for an inmarsat uplink... By the same logic should I be pissed at that requirement? If you interfere with my 6 GHz system, E-911 links die, critical air traffic control circuits die, people can die. Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "WISPA General List" wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a "secondary basis". . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree beamwidth? Tom DeReggi Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Harris Constellation full hot standby with space diversity is spendy. Does any of the Trango stuff do OC-3 or DS-3 native? We cannot put SS7 A links on IP based technology. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I believe all of Trango's licensed equipment (6ghz, 11ghz, 18ghz, 23ghz) is the same price. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Moreover, 6 GHz hardware is my most expensive stuff. I can get 11 GHz dragonwave at a much lower cost and it will do more than 6 GHz for most applications. Plus have all the perqs of license and exclusivity etc. - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
? - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... We brought down E911 service on a tower 100ft away from our tower with a $150 Mikrotik board... so that isn't much of a reason either. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: So I guess satellite earth station minimum size requirements would really make a barrier to entry. I think we had to have a 21 foot dish minimum for an inmarsat uplink... By the same logic should I be pissed at that requirement? If you interfere with my 6 GHz system, E-911 links die, critical air traffic control circuits die, people can die. Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree beamwidth? Tom DeReggi Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
A few years ago, Mikrotik's routerboard 500 units, when running off 48v PoE, would generate a +30db noise between 140-149mhz. The regional 911 uses that frequency for dispatch and communication. They were not impressed, and neither were we. Mikrotik never acknowledged the problem (and even deleted both messages posted on their forum (one by me, one by my partner)) but we figured out by switching to 18v PoE it would eliminate 95% of the noise. They have since fixed the problem with their boards. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: ? - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:51 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... We brought down E911 service on a tower 100ft away from our tower with a $150 Mikrotik board... so that isn't much of a reason either. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: So I guess satellite earth station minimum size requirements would really make a barrier to entry. I think we had to have a 21 foot dish minimum for an inmarsat uplink... By the same logic should I be pissed at that requirement? If you interfere with my 6 GHz system, E-911 links die, critical air traffic control circuits die, people can die. Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload
[WISPA] cancelled customer email
OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] cancelled customer email
I think we keep it alive for $5/month. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... 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] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
Don't bother with the web interface. Skim through the manual and do all configuration and management from the CLI. As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support. I can be available if you are still having difficulty. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... 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/
Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
Im going to do this early am tomorrow, Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? 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 Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Don't bother with the web interface. Skim through the manual and do all configuration and management from the CLI. As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support. I can be available if you are still having difficulty. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... 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/
Re: [WISPA] informing customers of internal issues
If you allow established communications but not new communications before your blocks then your users will never know that you are blocking all new communications from those IP spaces because when they request communication to one of those IPs they will get the responds back. / Eje CTO WISP-Router, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:30 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] informing customers of internal issues A few weeks ago we has a DOS attack from an Asian network. I quickly blocked the whole range addresses and the issue went away. Apparently, the range contained some web hosts with sites that are visited by one of my customers. I found this out when they asked for assistance. I unblocked the range and all is OK and no DOS attacks (yet). This customer asked if I could inform him when this type of issues arises. Obviously, it would be impossible for me to know if it affected any websites. Also, even if I knew which website, I cant know who visits them. Therefore, they asked if I can place any network changes on my forums. I've got several issues with that. What do you guys do? -RickG 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] cancelled customer email
I agree on the possibility of them coming back and will probably do it for him but I hate to use resources for someone using the competition no matter how small. While email calls are not high on the list, they do call. In fact, the ones using other networks to get to the email call the most. Thanks! -RickG On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a $25 per year email only option. They can keep their email address forever for all I care. AND, this makes it all that much easier for them to come back to use someday. marlon - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Yep. Thats why many folks use a lower gain for their sectors and omnis. - Original Message - From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage 16dB by 120* won't have much of a vertical pattern will it? I'd guess less than 10*. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage No but they will be about 20 feet high for an H pol 600 MHz slotted waveguide 16 dBi 120 degree sector. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I could see 16 dB sectors. Of course they will be large, but that's what it takes at these frequencies. We'll have antennas the same size as the broadcast TV antennas are now (I've seen some over 40' tall). Hopefully a manufacturer can work something out with regards to not having to have 4x 40' sectors on a tower to provide the needed coverage... that could result in some tasty rates. I don't think the number of wifi devices we see is a useful argument. Their response is 3.65 and 5.4 GHz... plenty of new space and no wifi devices. We need to stress the penetration abilities and the need for copious amounts of spectrum that has these penetration abilities. I believe these lower frequencies will help fill in coverage gaps within any given range. We may not have any more range with TVWS vs. existing bands with equal EIRP because of smaller antenna requirements, but buildings and trees no longer make that coverage spotty. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:50 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Hmmm Just for fun I ran the numbers at 600mhz. 20 dB tx from the radio, 16dB tx antenna (probably not at all reasonable due to size and small 50ish* coverage) to a 10 dB cpe antenna. -80 at 50 miles! Same thing with an 8dB (say omni) would be 20 miles at -80. The sad part though? We can do that with today's wifi gear! 20 miles is pretty easy in the open. Now lets run this at the WISPA 20 WATT level. That's 43dB eirp. So, 35dB tx power and 8dB omni to 10dB cpe antenna. I get -80 at 100 miles! Now we're talkin! The next question that has to be answered. What is the receive signal of the average TV set these days? What does it need to be able to pick up a signal? We need to know that number if we're to come up with a non interfering OOB level that we can suggest to the FCC. This is why people need to join wispa. We have to fight this fight. They are still looking at what to do with us it sounds like. We have to be ready to go back there again. We need to show them pictures of our areas, demographics, screen shots of all of the wifi devices we pick up at our ap's. etc. etc. etc. Pretty cool. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:12 AM Subject: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Based on TV antenna, it looks like the largest gain CPE will be around 10 dB for all but the lowest of frequencies. I just ran a Radio Mobile coverage area using a guesstimate at a white spaces system... EIRP of 20 dBm, 16 dBi sector, 10 dBi CPE, -80 dBm minimum allowed receive. The range wasn't much more than 2 miles in flat country land. With those same measurements with a 36 dBm EIRP, we have 10 miles, but terrain comes more into play here. For the extreme rural areas, this is where tower height comes into play. For everyone else, this is your foliage beater. In these areas we still need small cells for bandwidth capacity and interference rejection. Remember, the only signal levels mentioned were 40 mw for personal portable devices. Anything else is just speculation at this point. They may very well give fixed stations 4 W as they do in all other unlicensed bands. -- 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] cancelled customer email
I charge $5 per month for email only. Many use the service. I would not give this away for free. If we had something we could monetize for ads on our web based mail then we would probably give email away for free but I do not know how to do that. Anyone have luck making money from ads on web based mail? I know Google forbids this being done for anything but their own Gmail based mail or hosted Gmail for others. I am sure they are making a killing on the ads they use on their Gmail interface. I use Imail so I am guessing I culd add ads to web email messages. Scriv On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:47 PM, RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree on the possibility of them coming back and will probably do it for him but I hate to use resources for someone using the competition no matter how small. While email calls are not high on the list, they do call. In fact, the ones using other networks to get to the email call the most. Thanks! -RickG On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have a $25 per year email only option. They can keep their email address forever for all I care. AND, this makes it all that much easier for them to come back to use someday. marlon - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] cancelled customer email
$5/month per address __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email I think we keep it alive for $5/month. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
Gino, This is from memory about a month ago... but here ya go (the commands may not be exact, but should be close): 1. turn the power to the ODU on (odupower on) 2. set the frequency (freq 19000) 3. turn the oduagc off 4. set the ip address (ip config 192.168.100.100 255.255.255.0) 5. set the modulation at the lowest setting for alignment (speed 5 bpsk) That should be about it. You should be able to establish a link at that point. (linktest 10 will do 10 tests of the link quality). There are some things you have to watch before turning the modulation all the way up. The key to a good link isn't the RSSI, but the MSE (which needs to be over 30.00 to run 256QAM). On a very short link, we actually had to turn the power down to 13db to get the optimal MSE reading. Also, make sure your alignment is right on. If your path calculation showed -40 signal, you should be able to get at least a -40, maybe better. If you are off by 20 or 30db, you are aligned to a side-lobe. Send me a direct email if you need more help. I'll be on the road most of the day tomorrow, but should have limited email access. Travis Microserv Gino Villarini wrote: Im going to do this early am tomorrow, Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? 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 Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Don't bother with the web interface. Skim through the manual and do all configuration and management from the CLI. As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support. I can be available if you are still having difficulty. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... 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] cancelled customer email
Easiest $5/mth I have ever made. We have dial-up customers that have switched to other companies DSL that can not get our wireless ad keep thier email with us for $60/year. I have one customer that has done it for over 3 years now. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:18:24 -0700 I think we keep it alive for $5/month. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. 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] cancelled customer email
Personally without an internet package I'd do 10 or 15 On 11/6/08, Jerry Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $5/month per address __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email I think we keep it alive for $5/month. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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/ -- Sent from my mobile device 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] cancelled customer email
As a rule, we give leaving residentials 30 days on their email. We often get them back within that time. RickG wrote: OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
Hello Gino, You would really be doing yourself a favor to skim through the manual and then start asking more specific questions, but here's a rundown from memory on critical configuration points: (1) Enter configuration mode by typing con and enter password (2) odup on this turns on power to the ODU (3) cabl x.xx x.xx x.xx refer to manual for cable loss settings. 100' of LMR400 would be: cabl 1.48 2.25 3.90 (4) freq 19xxx this sets the TX freq for the ODU. Refer to your freq coordination (5) speed channel_bw modulation speed 3 qam16 would be used to set the radio to a 40MHz channel at QAM16. refer to freq coordination. (6) default on this sets default_opmode to ON (7) rat off this turns auto rate shift off. When first setting up you want this feature off. (8) odul on this turns on the ODU LED RSSI Display to aide in alignment (9) align on this turns on alignment mode which increases the refresh rate in which the RSSI is displayed. (10) target -35 this sets your target RSSI to -35 refer to your freq coordination for your expected RSSI reading (11) power 17 this sets your TX power to 17db refer to your freq coordination for your power setting Do not leave the align on after you have completed alignment. Do not leave the odul on after you have completed alignment. The cable loss settings, target RSSI and power will all have an effect on your RSSI, BER and MSE. This is something that I have been speaking with Trango about, but just takes time to learn and feel your way to the ideal combination. While the Giga radios are not a plug-in, point and walk away radio set they have proven to be very reliable, flexible and live up to their claims. We have deployed several Giga radios (6GHz, 11GHz and 18GHz) and have several more planned for the very near future. The price vs. feature set the Giga offers make it a hard radio to pass up. Additionally, Trango support has been good. Feel free to try me at the office if you have any questions. You probably will on your first one...grin Once you have it up and running you'll be very happy with the performance. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Im going to do this early am tomorrow, Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? 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 Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Don't bother with the web interface. Skim through the manual and do all configuration and management from the CLI. As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support. I can be available if you are still having difficulty. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... 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!
