Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Dennis Burgess]

OSPF Full duplex is no biggy, anyone can do it and is well documented,
but I don't think he needs that.  I would just put up a link and be
happy!  Keep in mind, installation is key to a quality and reliable
link! 



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:39 PM
To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Assuming you can get 40mhz of 5ghz spectrum and not need it anymore,
MT is great and it's cheap. Finding that 40mhz is your major concern.

I am running two backhauls, each with two pairs of radios (that's
40mhz of spectrum) and they're 99% awesome.  Don't use the 532/333
(433ah IMO) or dual nstreme (use Butch's pseudo fdx OSPF) and you'll
get that .999%.

On 9/16/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
>
> Marlon,
>
> I haven't seen every post on this thread but have been keeping eye on
it at
> a distance...
>
> Why would you not want to use a MT solution for about $500 for the
link
> with the ability to easily go 30/60MB depending on 20/40Mhz channel.
I'd
> say its proven there are a multitude of people that use the gear for
> backhaul on this list and any of them will tell you its a solid
performer.
> Is it the absolute most reliable rock solid gear available?  Depends
who
> you ask.  I've had MT gear running I've forgotten about for many years
> without a hickup.  Also had some that has to be replaced a bit more
than
> other solutions might need to be due to ethernet sensitiity - depends
on
> how & where its installed.
>
> But, considering the alternative prices you could get an awful lot
more for
> your money with this solution.  You could even put in two radios on
each
> side and link them together using on of many different ways for
redundancy
> - still at a fraction of the cost of other solutions.
>
> The positive side is your price range is very realistic for that
throughput
> - you have many good solid choices you won't go wrong with most of
which
> has been discussed on this list already.  I'll give you one more...  I
have
> an external trango Atlas link coming down in about a week I can part
with
> ;)
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>  Original Message 
>> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:57 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original
> question!
>>
>> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20
megs
>
>> both ways will do just fine for now.
>>
>> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something
less
>
>> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
>>
>> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like
the
>
>> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using
and
>
>> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too
> cheap
>> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
>>
>> thanks,
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Butch Evans" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>> >> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have
any
> FCC
>> >> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> >> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have
on
>> >> board
>> >> wireless.
>> >
>> > You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.
The
>> > RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio
(2.4GHz).
>> >
>> > --
>> >

>> > * Butch Evans   * Professional Network
Consultation*
>> > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering
*
>> > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks
*
>> > * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!
*
>> >

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


> 
>> > 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: ht

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Dennis Burgess]

Distributors, http://store.jeffcosoho.com, a WISPA vendor member, DO have the 
ability to sell FCC Mikrotik CERTIFED SYSTEMS!  These include the FCC sticker 
that is required as well as the information you guys have asked about already!  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

As I linked to previously, there is a search feature on the FCC site.  It lists 
20+ certifications for RouterBoard product, as I previously posted, including 
R52H, R52, R52N, R5H, etc.  This is what I emailed back on 9/14:

Go to:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
Put in Mikrotik for the applicant name.
You will see their modular approval listed for their various products.  R52, 
R52-350 (R52H),R2N, R52N, RB/411AR, R5H, etc.
To get more into detail about the antennas, you will need to look at all the 
exhibits listed to find the different antenna models.


This has been explained many times over on multiple forums and lists.  MikroTik 
does not sell complete systems to users in the US.  Distributors may take it 
upon themselves to do so, but then that makes the distributor then liable.  
QuickLink (our distribution company) and many other distributors do not create 
complete systems, however we offer kits for this prime reason.  As a result, 
the kit does not have to be certified.

The best forum posting I have seen that explains this explicitly is:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18064508-Re-Mikrotik-FCC-Identification

It provides direct references to FCC rules.  It also explains more or less why 
these units are allowed to be imported and sold in the US.  I'm no longer 
posting to this thread as people fail to do their own research and continue to 
play devil's advocate to consistently attack certain products. 

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Hi Chuck-

I already said that the FCC site only shows tests for the Crossroads, the
411 and a couple of cards.

That is all that is on the site.
I posted links to exact things.
If you know of other products (that are not just variations of the same
wireless card) then PLEASE post exact links.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The test results are available on the FCC website.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:27 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Sorry Eje- No need for personal criticism. If you don't like the discussion,
then press delete- but don't try to silence me.

What I would like to see happen is for MT to show us the testing. They
shouldn't have anything to hide.
As has been said before, no one can know whether it was actually tested
before or not and whether it passed or not unless it is marked as such or
the results are published.  Other manufacturers do it so why should they be
any different.

They should be up front with all the info or else people will be left to
draw their own conclusions.

I am a MT user, have been using the 386 stuff in PCs for years and years now
and our entire network is built around it, so I am not anti MT and I
certainly would not spread FUD. I for one would love to know how they tested
and to what standard (A or B computing device) because we might consider
using the boards more if we knew how they were intended to be used.

If you are selling their equipment, perhaps you could ask them to publish
the test results.

Best wishes

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
posts. 

All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
testing done on them. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no mark

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Dennis Burgess]

You can do 30+ meg with a 20mhz A link without issues, for the cheap.
Don't remember how far you go, but with proper antennas, 10 miles is no
prob and under 1k without issues.  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original
question!

I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs

both ways will do just fine for now.

What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something
less 
than $3000 if it's at all possible.

I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like
the 
Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and

liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too
cheap 
like an 802.11a ap and client setup.

thanks,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices


> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any
FCC
>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on 
>> board
>> wireless.
>
> You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
> RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
>
> -- 
> 
> * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
> * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
> * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
> * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
> 
>
>
>
>


> 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] backhaul choices

[Dennis Burgess]

Believe this is in the documentation MT provides.  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:01 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:47 -0600, 3-dB Networks wrote: 
> I really haven't followed this thread that closely... but with this
much
> confusion... Mikrotik should probably explain how and why they are FCC
> legal.  Most manufacturers put at the end of their user manuals a
detailed
> explanation of their regulatory compliance... Mikrotik should take the
time
> to do the same

A call for Mikrotik to document something?  Hmmm.  ;-)

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *






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] Need Lightning Arrestor Advice

[James McBryan]

Hello all,

I am part of a group installing a wireless network in rural Honduras  
for a growing educational system with a chapter of Engineers Without  
Borders (http://ewb-usa.org). We are creating a 7 node wireless  
network spanning a 3 mile radius. Since Honduras is very prone to  
rain storms and lightning strikes, we need to protect our equipment  
from the lightning. We plan on doing the following:

1) Place an arrestor between the radio and the antenna
2) Place an arrestor in the POE injector

Some of the following criteria we are thinking:

Amount of lightning strikes: One or Many
Insertion Loss: Small as possbile
Frequency : 2.4-5.8 GHZ

When searching the internet, I see many many types of lightning  
arrestors given my criteria. Does anyone have any recommendations  
through their experience with lightning arrestors? What do you use?

Thanks!
James



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] backhaul choices

[jp]

I'd do a trango45 link, with 2' dual polarity dishes. That'd be the most 
flexible for 5.4-5.8 approved.

You could also use used Alvarion gear like a b28 set or VL-AU and SU-54 
and come in under the budget. 

We've also got in service Alvarion B14 (slightly slow), Mikrotik based 
links, and now a Solectek Excel (slightly over your budget perhaps) 
link.


On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 03:57:37PM -0700, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original question!
> 
> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs 
> both ways will do just fine for now.
> 
> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less 
> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
> 
> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the 
> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and 
> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too cheap 
> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
> 
> thanks,
> marlon
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Butch Evans" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> >> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> >> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on 
> >> board
> >> wireless.
> >
> > You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
> > RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
> >
> > -- 
> > 
> > * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
> > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
> > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
> > * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > 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] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade tp Zero then drop- repeat.

[Blair Davis]

I had this with XR9's.  Replace the XR9 on sub B.

 Tom DeReggi wrote:
> I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if 
> anyone has any insight.
>
> A summary config is
>
> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5 
> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags VLAN 
> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself does 
> not have any VLAN configured.
>
> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on everything. 
> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces configured.
> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created for 
> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS interfaces 
> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three WDS 
> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under one 
> Bridge.
>
> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has two 
> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather. The 
> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave. 
> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith 
> test continually at consistent speed.
>
> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS 
> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test.
>
> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A PS, 
> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS 
> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith 
> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the following 
> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then slowly 
> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps, etc, 
> down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and 
> immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and the 
> same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same thing 
> applies, because it receives also.
>
> Noise is low at teh SU, about -67, and -74 at AP.  At first I thought it was 
> noise at the IP, because occastionally SNR gets very low. .But 
> SubscriberA has a lower signal at -84 and does not experience the same 
> problem.  Just for grins, I tried playing around with TRansmit power at the 
> SubscriberB, but that had no positive effect.  As well, as a test, I 
> disabled the second WDS interface to SubscriberA, and no change.
>
> To be clear... SubscriberA and SubscriberB each have their own WDS interface 
> configured on WLAN1 of the 433AH AP.
> I am using embedded MTOS V 3.10 on each.
>
> What is causing this problem?  Why is speed received from my SubscriberB 
> incrementally degrading and breaking link?
>
> Bridge loops? Is my config valid? RB411 Bug?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade tp Zero then drop- repeat.

[Josh Luthman]

Well your problem reminded me of wds + nstreme problem is why I
brought it up.  I believe wireless-test will fix this.

Any way you could test the links disconnected from the rest of the
network and see if stressing the links drops it?

Are the links losing wireless association?

On 9/16/09, Tom DeReggi  wrote:
> No I am not using nstreme now.
>
> However, to expand on the conversationsand history of the job I am
> using WDS because that is the standard configuration that has always worked
> for us. We have a central routing platform at the nearest regional tower and
> bandwdith manage via VLAN, so we wanted all our leg radios to be true
> bridges, for easy consistent management of IP space. Many of our MT isntalls
> are configured for VLAN. When we originally selected WDS for our standard
> config, taht was like 3 years ago, with the earlier MT 2.X versions, and
> some of teh alternate methods did not properly work as stated in manual. For
> example, back then Station WDS didn't work right. Now a couple years later,
> and up to many version of 3.X, we want to re-investigate what is best
> practices.
>
> In this particular case, Subscriber A had to be a true bridge for various
> reasons so used WDS. But SubscriberB was an end user residential client,
> connected with a Linksys router, and could have worked fine as a standard
> wifi client.  What we tried to do first was setup a Virtual AP.  Leave
> Custoemr A on WDS, and then setup CustomerB as a standard wifi station on
> the Virtual AP standard AP. But we couldn't get the Virtual AP to pass
> traffic. We weren't sure if it was a config mistake or a incompatible
> configuration, doing both WDS and Virtual AP on the same WLAN. So that is
> why we reconfigured everything back to all WDS.
>
> We are looking for alternate configuration options, if better. In this
> particular case, we were very concerned about hidden node type issues, and
> concerned using regular WDS for both clients could cause significant Hideen
> Node type colissions or self interference.  SubA was like 5 miles away, and
> pushes much larger amount of traffic, SubB was like 1 mile away, and low use
> residential. We were concerned Residential SubB could get performance issues
> because of SubA's traffic use. We were debating whether NStreme w/ polling
> would have been the best configuration for the solution. Does NStreme
> polling allow full bridging like WDS?
>
> Do you have any recommendations on best practice config now for MT PTMP,
> (without routing)?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> degradetp Zero then drop- repeat.
>
>
>> You're not using nstreme are you?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
>> improbable, must be the truth."
>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Tom DeReggi
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering
>>> if
>>> anyone has any insight.
>>>
>>> A summary config is
>>>
>>> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
>>> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags
>>> VLAN
>>> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself
>>> does
>>> not have any VLAN configured.
>>>
>>> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on
>>> everything.
>>> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces configured.
>>> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created
>>> for
>>> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
>>> interfaces
>>> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three WDS
>>> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under
>>> one
>>> Bridge.
>>>
>>> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has
>>> two
>>> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather.
>>> The
>>> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave.
>>> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith
>>> test continually at consistent speed.
>>>
>>> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS
>>> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test.
>>>
>>> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A
>>> PS,
>>> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS
>>> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith
>>> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the
>>> following
>>> r

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetp Zero then drop- repeat.

[Tom DeReggi]

No I am not using nstreme now.

However, to expand on the conversationsand history of the job I am 
using WDS because that is the standard configuration that has always worked 
for us. We have a central routing platform at the nearest regional tower and 
bandwdith manage via VLAN, so we wanted all our leg radios to be true 
bridges, for easy consistent management of IP space. Many of our MT isntalls 
are configured for VLAN. When we originally selected WDS for our standard 
config, taht was like 3 years ago, with the earlier MT 2.X versions, and 
some of teh alternate methods did not properly work as stated in manual. For 
example, back then Station WDS didn't work right. Now a couple years later, 
and up to many version of 3.X, we want to re-investigate what is best 
practices.

In this particular case, Subscriber A had to be a true bridge for various 
reasons so used WDS. But SubscriberB was an end user residential client, 
connected with a Linksys router, and could have worked fine as a standard 
wifi client.  What we tried to do first was setup a Virtual AP.  Leave 
Custoemr A on WDS, and then setup CustomerB as a standard wifi station on 
the Virtual AP standard AP. But we couldn't get the Virtual AP to pass 
traffic. We weren't sure if it was a config mistake or a incompatible 
configuration, doing both WDS and Virtual AP on the same WLAN. So that is 
why we reconfigured everything back to all WDS.

We are looking for alternate configuration options, if better. In this 
particular case, we were very concerned about hidden node type issues, and 
concerned using regular WDS for both clients could cause significant Hideen 
Node type colissions or self interference.  SubA was like 5 miles away, and 
pushes much larger amount of traffic, SubB was like 1 mile away, and low use 
residential. We were concerned Residential SubB could get performance issues 
because of SubA's traffic use. We were debating whether NStreme w/ polling 
would have been the best configuration for the solution. Does NStreme 
polling allow full bridging like WDS?

Do you have any recommendations on best practice config now for MT PTMP, 
(without routing)?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed 
degradetp Zero then drop- repeat.


> You're not using nstreme are you?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Tom DeReggi 
> wrote:
>
>> I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering 
>> if
>> anyone has any insight.
>>
>> A summary config is
>>
>> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
>> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags 
>> VLAN
>> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself
>> does
>> not have any VLAN configured.
>>
>> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on 
>> everything.
>> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces configured.
>> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created
>> for
>> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
>> interfaces
>> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three WDS
>> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under
>> one
>> Bridge.
>>
>> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has
>> two
>> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather. 
>> The
>> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave.
>> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith
>> test continually at consistent speed.
>>
>> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS
>> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test.
>>
>> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A 
>> PS,
>> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS
>> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith
>> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the 
>> following
>> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
>> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then
>> slowly
>> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps, 
>> etc,
>> down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and
>> immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and
>> the
>> same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional te

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Jerry Richardson]

If your 5.7 spectrum is crowded, you might consider TrangoLink45's. Hang em and 
forget em.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:39 PM
To: sc...@brevardwireless.com; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Assuming you can get 40mhz of 5ghz spectrum and not need it anymore,
MT is great and it's cheap. Finding that 40mhz is your major concern.

I am running two backhauls, each with two pairs of radios (that's
40mhz of spectrum) and they're 99% awesome.  Don't use the 532/333
(433ah IMO) or dual nstreme (use Butch's pseudo fdx OSPF) and you'll
get that .999%.

On 9/16/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
>
> Marlon,
>
> I haven't seen every post on this thread but have been keeping eye on it at
> a distance...
>
> Why would you not want to use a MT solution for about $500 for the link
> with the ability to easily go 30/60MB depending on 20/40Mhz channel.  I'd
> say its proven there are a multitude of people that use the gear for
> backhaul on this list and any of them will tell you its a solid performer.
> Is it the absolute most reliable rock solid gear available?  Depends who
> you ask.  I've had MT gear running I've forgotten about for many years
> without a hickup.  Also had some that has to be replaced a bit more than
> other solutions might need to be due to ethernet sensitiity - depends on
> how & where its installed.
>
> But, considering the alternative prices you could get an awful lot more for
> your money with this solution.  You could even put in two radios on each
> side and link them together using on of many different ways for redundancy
> - still at a fraction of the cost of other solutions.
>
> The positive side is your price range is very realistic for that throughput
> - you have many good solid choices you won't go wrong with most of which
> has been discussed on this list already.  I'll give you one more...  I have
> an external trango Atlas link coming down in about a week I can part with
> ;)
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>  Original Message 
>> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:57 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original
> question!
>>
>> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs
>
>> both ways will do just fine for now.
>>
>> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less
>
>> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
>>
>> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the
>
>> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and
>
>> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too
> cheap
>> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
>>
>> thanks,
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Butch Evans" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>> >> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any
> FCC
>> >> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> >> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
>> >> board
>> >> wireless.
>> >
>> > You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
>> > RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
>> >
>> > --
>> > 
>> > * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
>> > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
>> > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
>> > * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
> 
> 
>> > 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] backhaul choices

[Bret Clark]

I don't recall the distances you needed to run, but we've had really
good luck with the Solectek Skyway 7000 products and have quite a few
installed as backbone PTP links. 

I believe they are in the price range you are looking at. 

Bret


Josh Luthman wrote:

  Assuming you can get 40mhz of 5ghz spectrum and not need it anymore,
MT is great and it's cheap. Finding that 40mhz is your major concern.

I am running two backhauls, each with two pairs of radios (that's
40mhz of spectrum) and they're 99% awesome.  Don't use the 532/333
(433ah IMO) or dual nstreme (use Butch's pseudo fdx OSPF) and you'll
get that .999%.

On 9/16/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
  
  
Marlon,

I haven't seen every post on this thread but have been keeping eye on it at
a distance...

Why would you not want to use a MT solution for about $500 for the link
with the ability to easily go 30/60MB depending on 20/40Mhz channel.  I'd
say its proven there are a multitude of people that use the gear for
backhaul on this list and any of them will tell you its a solid performer.
Is it the absolute most reliable rock solid gear available?  Depends who
you ask.  I've had MT gear running I've forgotten about for many years
without a hickup.  Also had some that has to be replaced a bit more than
other solutions might need to be due to ethernet sensitiity - depends on
how & where its installed.

But, considering the alternative prices you could get an awful lot more for
your money with this solution.  You could even put in two radios on each
side and link them together using on of many different ways for redundancy
- still at a fraction of the cost of other solutions.

The positive side is your price range is very realistic for that throughput
- you have many good solid choices you won't go wrong with most of which
has been discussed on this list already.  I'll give you one more...  I have
an external trango Atlas link coming down in about a week I can part with
;)

Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102

 Original Message 


  From: "Marlon K. Schafer" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:57 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original
  

question!


  I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs
  


  both ways will do just fine for now.

What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less
  


  than $3000 if it's at all possible.

I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the
  


  Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and
  


  liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too
  

cheap


  like an 802.11a ap and client setup.

thanks,
marlon

- Original Message -
From: "Butch Evans" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices


  
  
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:


  As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any
  

  

FCC


  

  Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
board
wireless.
  

You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).

--

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *






  





  
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/

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Josh Luthman]

Assuming you can get 40mhz of 5ghz spectrum and not need it anymore,
MT is great and it's cheap. Finding that 40mhz is your major concern.

I am running two backhauls, each with two pairs of radios (that's
40mhz of spectrum) and they're 99% awesome.  Don't use the 532/333
(433ah IMO) or dual nstreme (use Butch's pseudo fdx OSPF) and you'll
get that .999%.

On 9/16/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
>
> Marlon,
>
> I haven't seen every post on this thread but have been keeping eye on it at
> a distance...
>
> Why would you not want to use a MT solution for about $500 for the link
> with the ability to easily go 30/60MB depending on 20/40Mhz channel.  I'd
> say its proven there are a multitude of people that use the gear for
> backhaul on this list and any of them will tell you its a solid performer.
> Is it the absolute most reliable rock solid gear available?  Depends who
> you ask.  I've had MT gear running I've forgotten about for many years
> without a hickup.  Also had some that has to be replaced a bit more than
> other solutions might need to be due to ethernet sensitiity - depends on
> how & where its installed.
>
> But, considering the alternative prices you could get an awful lot more for
> your money with this solution.  You could even put in two radios on each
> side and link them together using on of many different ways for redundancy
> - still at a fraction of the cost of other solutions.
>
> The positive side is your price range is very realistic for that throughput
> - you have many good solid choices you won't go wrong with most of which
> has been discussed on this list already.  I'll give you one more...  I have
> an external trango Atlas link coming down in about a week I can part with
> ;)
>
> Scott Carullo
> Brevard Wireless
> 321-205-1100 x102
>
>  Original Message 
>> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:57 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original
> question!
>>
>> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs
>
>> both ways will do just fine for now.
>>
>> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less
>
>> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
>>
>> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the
>
>> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and
>
>> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too
> cheap
>> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
>>
>> thanks,
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Butch Evans" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>>
>> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>> >> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any
> FCC
>> >> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> >> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
>> >> board
>> >> wireless.
>> >
>> > You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
>> > RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
>> >
>> > --
>> > 
>> > * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
>> > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
>> > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
>> > * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
> 
> 
>> > 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] backhaul choices

[Scott Carullo]

Marlon,

I haven't seen every post on this thread but have been keeping eye on it at 
a distance...

Why would you not want to use a MT solution for about $500 for the link 
with the ability to easily go 30/60MB depending on 20/40Mhz channel.  I'd 
say its proven there are a multitude of people that use the gear for 
backhaul on this list and any of them will tell you its a solid performer.  
Is it the absolute most reliable rock solid gear available?  Depends who 
you ask.  I've had MT gear running I've forgotten about for many years 
without a hickup.  Also had some that has to be replaced a bit more than 
other solutions might need to be due to ethernet sensitiity - depends on 
how & where its installed.

But, considering the alternative prices you could get an awful lot more for 
your money with this solution.  You could even put in two radios on each 
side and link them together using on of many different ways for redundancy 
- still at a fraction of the cost of other solutions.

The positive side is your price range is very realistic for that throughput 
- you have many good solid choices you won't go wrong with most of which 
has been discussed on this list already.  I'll give you one more...  I have 
an external trango Atlas link coming down in about a week I can part with 
;)

Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102

 Original Message 
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:57 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
> 
> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original 
question!
> 
> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs 

> both ways will do just fine for now.
> 
> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less 

> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
> 
> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the 

> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and 

> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too 
cheap 
> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
> 
> thanks,
> marlon
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Butch Evans" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
> >> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any 
FCC
> >> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> >> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on 
> >> board
> >> wireless.
> >
> > You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
> > RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
> >
> > -- 
> > 
> > * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
> > * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
> > * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
> > * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > 


> > 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] backhaul choices

[Chuck Hogg]

As I linked to previously, there is a search feature on the FCC site.  It lists 
20+ certifications for RouterBoard product, as I previously posted, including 
R52H, R52, R52N, R5H, etc.  This is what I emailed back on 9/14:

Go to:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm
Put in Mikrotik for the applicant name.
You will see their modular approval listed for their various products.  R52, 
R52-350 (R52H),R2N, R52N, RB/411AR, R5H, etc.
To get more into detail about the antennas, you will need to look at all the 
exhibits listed to find the different antenna models.


This has been explained many times over on multiple forums and lists.  MikroTik 
does not sell complete systems to users in the US.  Distributors may take it 
upon themselves to do so, but then that makes the distributor then liable.  
QuickLink (our distribution company) and many other distributors do not create 
complete systems, however we offer kits for this prime reason.  As a result, 
the kit does not have to be certified.

The best forum posting I have seen that explains this explicitly is:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18064508-Re-Mikrotik-FCC-Identification

It provides direct references to FCC rules.  It also explains more or less why 
these units are allowed to be imported and sold in the US.  I'm no longer 
posting to this thread as people fail to do their own research and continue to 
play devil's advocate to consistently attack certain products. 

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:12 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Hi Chuck-

I already said that the FCC site only shows tests for the Crossroads, the
411 and a couple of cards.

That is all that is on the site.
I posted links to exact things.
If you know of other products (that are not just variations of the same
wireless card) then PLEASE post exact links.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The test results are available on the FCC website.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:27 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Sorry Eje- No need for personal criticism. If you don't like the discussion,
then press delete- but don't try to silence me.

What I would like to see happen is for MT to show us the testing. They
shouldn't have anything to hide.
As has been said before, no one can know whether it was actually tested
before or not and whether it passed or not unless it is marked as such or
the results are published.  Other manufacturers do it so why should they be
any different.

They should be up front with all the info or else people will be left to
draw their own conclusions.

I am a MT user, have been using the 386 stuff in PCs for years and years now
and our entire network is built around it, so I am not anti MT and I
certainly would not spread FUD. I for one would love to know how they tested
and to what standard (A or B computing device) because we might consider
using the boards more if we knew how they were intended to be used.

If you are selling their equipment, perhaps you could ask them to publish
the test results.

Best wishes

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
posts. 

All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
testing done on them. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
numbers at all.
There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
not remove the board and look underneath.

As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
certification.
You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
the sticker. I think the user's manu

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Chuck Bartosch]

If there's any chance of your ever wanting more bandwidth, I'd not go  
to 3.65 for the link.

However, our experience with Redline is pretty good too. We don't use  
them these days but if I weren't happy with Alvarion, that's where I'd  
go for relatively low cost back haul links. I say "relatively" because  
it's neither will be as cheap as a 'tik solution nor as expensive as  
going DragonWave or Ceregon, which are overkill for your application.

Chuck

On Sep 16, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> Marlon - looked into Redline an80i 3.65?   It's like 3k for the low
> speed key of 14 megs and maybe 4k for something more like 40 megs.
> You can upgrade from low to high speed key later at no dollar penalty.
> Keep in mind low speed is 7mhz and high speed is 20mhz.
>
> On 9/16/09, Marlon K. Schafer  wrote:
>> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original  
>> question!
>>
>> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20  
>> megs
>> both ways will do just fine for now.
>>
>> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.   
>> Something less
>> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
>>
>> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY  
>> like the
>> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are  
>> using and
>> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something  
>> too cheap
>> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
>>
>> thanks,
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Butch Evans" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
 As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have  
 any FCC
 Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
 They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have  
 on
 board
 wireless.
>>>
>>> You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.   
>>> The
>>> RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio  
>>> (2.4GHz).
>>>
>>> --
>>> 
>>> * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
>>> * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
>>> * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
>>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> 
> 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/

--
Chuck Bartosch
Clarity Connect, Inc.
200 Pleasant Grove Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-8268

"When the stars threw down their spears,
and water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile, His work to see?
Did He who made the Lamb make thee?"

 From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger!






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] backhaul choices

[Chuck Bartosch]

To answer your question, we're using the B14, B28, and B100's from  
Alvarion for this kind of thing. We're extremely happy. I think the  
pricing is close to your goal, but the truth is, I don't recall what  
it costs off hand.

Chuck

On Sep 16, 2009, at 6:57 PM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:

> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original  
> question!
>
> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20  
> megs
> both ways will do just fine for now.
>
> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something  
> less
> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
>
> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY  
> like the
> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using  
> and
> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something  
> too cheap
> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
>
> thanks,
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Butch Evans" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>
>> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have  
>>> any FCC
>>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
>>> board
>>> wireless.
>>
>> You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.   
>> The
>> RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio  
>> (2.4GHz).
>>
>> -- 
>> 
>> * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
>> * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
>> * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/

--
Chuck Bartosch
Clarity Connect, Inc.
200 Pleasant Grove Road
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 257-8268

"When the stars threw down their spears,
and water'd heaven with their tears,
Did He smile, His work to see?
Did He who made the Lamb make thee?"

 From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger!






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] backhaul choices

[Josh Luthman]

Marlon - looked into Redline an80i 3.65?   It's like 3k for the low
speed key of 14 megs and maybe 4k for something more like 40 megs.
You can upgrade from low to high speed key later at no dollar penalty.
 Keep in mind low speed is 7mhz and high speed is 20mhz.

On 9/16/09, Marlon K. Schafer  wrote:
> Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original question!
>
> I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs
> both ways will do just fine for now.
>
> What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less
> than $3000 if it's at all possible.
>
> I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the
> Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and
> liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too cheap
> like an 802.11a ap and client setup.
>
> thanks,
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Butch Evans" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>
>> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
>>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
>>> board
>>> wireless.
>>
>> You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
>> RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
>>
>> --
>> 
>> * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
>> * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
>> * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle



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] backhaul choices

[3-dB Networks]

Yeah what was I thinking :-D

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com


>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Butch Evans
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:01 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:47 -0600, 3-dB Networks wrote:
>> I really haven't followed this thread that closely... but with this
>much
>> confusion... Mikrotik should probably explain how and why they are FCC
>> legal.  Most manufacturers put at the end of their user manuals a
>detailed
>> explanation of their regulatory compliance... Mikrotik should take the
>time
>> to do the same
>
>A call for Mikrotik to document something?  Hmmm.  ;-)
>
>--
>
>* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
>* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
>* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
>* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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] backhaul choices

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:47 -0600, 3-dB Networks wrote: 
> I really haven't followed this thread that closely... but with this much
> confusion... Mikrotik should probably explain how and why they are FCC
> legal.  Most manufacturers put at the end of their user manuals a detailed
> explanation of their regulatory compliance... Mikrotik should take the time
> to do the same

A call for Mikrotik to document something?  Hmmm.  ;-)

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





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] backhaul choices

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Uh, guys, this is interesting.  But it doesn't answer the original question!

I don't have a need for a 100meg full duplex backhaul solution.  20 megs 
both ways will do just fine for now.

What ideas do y'all have for a 20+ meg backhaul solution.  Something less 
than $3000 if it's at all possible.

I know about the MT gear.  I''ve already used one.  And I REALLY like the 
Airaya gear it'll replace.  I'm just wondering what people are using and 
liking.  I don't want any unproven brand new gear.  Or  something too cheap 
like an 802.11a ap and client setup.

thanks,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices


> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote:
>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on 
>> board
>> wireless.
>
> You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
> RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).
>
> -- 
> 
> * Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
> * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
> * http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
> * http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *
> 
>
>
>
> 
> 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] backhaul choices

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:22 -0400, ralph wrote: 
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.

You are half correct.  The Crossroads does have a built-in radio.  The
RB411 does not.  There IS a RB411R that has a built-in radio (2.4GHz).

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * Wired or Wireless Networks   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE!  *





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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects

[Chuck Bartosch]

Though it is a requirement (as Tim set out), the requirement doesn't  
really have a lot of teeth in my view. If a competitor doesn't want  
you on, they can design it so it's hard to get on.

For example, a fiber carrier has to have an attachment point built in  
for you to attach at a given location. If there isn't one nearby, well  
tough.

If there is an attachment point but you can't come to terms, it goes  
to arbitration. However, they aren't obligated to give you wholesale  
access...just "attachment", whatever the heck that means. There just  
seems to me to be 100 ways to Sunday for a large carrier to play their  
usual games with this stuff and block the intent.

So basically, based on the wording of the rule, it's hard to see how  
they are going to achieve the intent behind the goal unless the  
provider is willing to and interested in doing so.

Chuck


On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:39 PM, Scottie Arnett wrote:

> Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open  
> their network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule?
>
> Scottie
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: Chuck Bartosch 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400
>
>> There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you  
>> don't
>> think it's a good plan.
>>
>> In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that  
>> explicitly
>> disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over  
>> about
>> individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over
>> anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage
>> area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you
>> can find it on line.
>>
>> The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are  
>> instructed
>> to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this.
>>
>> Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms
>> about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any
>> form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's.
>>
>> It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out
>> what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach  
>> you're
>> suggesting as I understood the circular.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>> On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>
>>> Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan.
>>> The
>>> NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer
>>> money
>>> optimally wisely and benefit the public, and
>>> adhere to the NOFA rules.  If you think you can do a better plan,
>>> but didn;t
>>> have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get
>>> approved
>>> if its less good?
>>> And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA
>>> what we
>>> think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the
>>> public that
>>> has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects.
>>>
>>> I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that
>>> targeted
>>> truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider
>>> infrastructure. I plan to support those projects.
>>> For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that
>>> would
>>> directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets.  I
>>> plan to
>>> protest that 20%.  Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre-
>>> existing
>>> providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them
>>> into the
>>> proposal to gain their support.  If they didn't do that, they
>>> deserve to
>>> have their applications protested, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> As well, if a grant application covers an area that you entended on
>>> applying
>>> for in Round2, I see no problem in telling NTIA/RUS that, and
>>> advising that
>>> the Round1 funds are oversubscribed, and Round1 funds should go to
>>> projects
>>> without alledged conflict of interests first, and at minimum deny  
>>> the
>>> conflcit of interest applicants until round2, where they can be mroe
>>> fairly
>>> considered, and so there is more time to gain fact on what is and
>>> isn't
>>> underserved areas, and consider all potential applicants for the
>>> areas.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "L. Aaron Kaplan" 
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:19 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects
>>>
>>>
>
>
> Seriously?  You would categorize government-subsidized broadband
> expansion
> as capitalistic competition?


 I should have said - receiving some funds and thus increasing the
 speed of biz expansion.
 I see nothing un-capitalistic per se about receiving funds in order
 to
 revive the economy.

 The real question however is, will *only* the big boys get  
 something
 th

Re: [WISPA] 2.4 ghz 24db grids.

[Marlon K. Schafer]

I have tried a couple of different units.  I keep coming back to the Andrew 
grids.  Rock solid, relatively light, consistent performers.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Reed" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2.4 ghz 24db grids.


>I have probably 100 or so PacWireless PA24-24 and I don't see that issue
> on any of them.  They have been solid for me.
>
> Michael Baird wrote:
>> What grid type/vendors are most using here. Our installers are having
>> some issues with our Grid deployments. We've tried a few types of
>> Pac-Wireless's, some of them have had wildly fluctuating signal levels
>> they bounce 20db. Our Andrew grids seem to work fine, but we are looking
>> for a less costly alternative, any ideas? We are using Ubiquity
>> Bullet2-HP's as the client radios on these things. I'm just wondering
>> what causes this, we can take a different radio/antenna and get a rock
>> solid connection on the same pole, so we've discounted some kind of
>> interference issue.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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 - www.avg.com
>> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.99/2372 - Release Date: 
>> 09/15/09 05:59:00
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Sr. Systems Engineer
> GAB Midwest
> 1-800-363-1544 x4000
> Cell: 260-273-7239
>
>
>
> 
> 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] 2.4 ghz 24db grids.

[Michael Baird]

Well this is strange, we've seen it on different model Grids. We saw the 
same behavior with Non-M and M based Bullets.
The signal just keeps bouncing 20db from -74 to -94 for example, with an 
Andrew it is solid at around the -74. Is it possible they are defective? 
I can't see how we could be assembling these things improperly, it's 
pretty obvious. We do use them in Horizontal polarity, but the feedhorn 
is parallel to the wires when we do this. I mean it's like it's flipping 
between HPOL/VPOL.

Regards
Michael Baird
> I've been installing pac grids with the 5ghz version of the new Bullet, the
> 5hp, and it's been darn stable. Could it be something in the Airmax or the
> 2ghz???  Dunno.  
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Baird
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:58 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] 2.4 ghz 24db grids.
>
> What grid type/vendors are most using here. Our installers are having 
> some issues with our Grid deployments. We've tried a few types of 
> Pac-Wireless's, some of them have had wildly fluctuating signal levels 
> they bounce 20db. Our Andrew grids seem to work fine, but we are looking 
> for a less costly alternative, any ideas? We are using Ubiquity 
> Bullet2-HP's as the client radios on these things. I'm just wondering 
> what causes this, we can take a different radio/antenna and get a rock 
> solid connection on the same pole, so we've discounted some kind of 
> interference issue.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>
>
> 
> 
> 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] backhaul choices

[ralph]

Hi Chuck-

I already said that the FCC site only shows tests for the Crossroads, the
411 and a couple of cards.

That is all that is on the site.
I posted links to exact things.
If you know of other products (that are not just variations of the same
wireless card) then PLEASE post exact links.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:47 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The test results are available on the FCC website.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:27 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Sorry Eje- No need for personal criticism. If you don't like the discussion,
then press delete- but don't try to silence me.

What I would like to see happen is for MT to show us the testing. They
shouldn't have anything to hide.
As has been said before, no one can know whether it was actually tested
before or not and whether it passed or not unless it is marked as such or
the results are published.  Other manufacturers do it so why should they be
any different.

They should be up front with all the info or else people will be left to
draw their own conclusions.

I am a MT user, have been using the 386 stuff in PCs for years and years now
and our entire network is built around it, so I am not anti MT and I
certainly would not spread FUD. I for one would love to know how they tested
and to what standard (A or B computing device) because we might consider
using the boards more if we knew how they were intended to be used.

If you are selling their equipment, perhaps you could ask them to publish
the test results.

Best wishes

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
posts. 

All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
testing done on them. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
numbers at all.
There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
not remove the board and look underneath.

As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
certification.
You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.

The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9435&native_or_pdf=pdf

The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including all
the warnings on page 11
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9433&native_or_pdf=pdf



Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
configurations.
There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:

R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
"test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.

R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
still responsible
for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates this
module.


So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility to
the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
probably operates this way.

It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
Ligowave) becomes certified too.

I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.

I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
maybe Lon

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[ralph]

Hi Gino-
If you are addressing that to me, I am most certainly not confusing it. 
Anyway it doesn't matter. Both have to be met.
And you do too, if you assemble it into an product.

Sounds like your 25 year old TV was tested and the manufacturer properly 
labeled it.
The manufacturer also properly labeled my Ligowave CPE, my Canopy AP and CPE, 
my Tropos 5110, my Tranzeo CPQ-15F, my Meraki Mini- Outdoor, my 15.00 Harbor 
Freight Driveway wireless alert alert system, my Ruckus MM2211 CPE and 
everything else I can pick up here in the lab. Why should MT not have to follow 
the rules as well?

Maybe one of the importers will get MT to show us all their test data and get 
all the proper notices, labels, operator manual inserts and whatnot like most 
of the rest of the manufacturers do.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:48 PM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Don't confuse the FCC aproval of the routerboard emmisions as a CPU  
with the actual FCC certification of a rf system with radio pigtail  
and antenna

Even my 25 year old tv has a FCC label stating it complies with  
emmisions

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:42 PM, "Josh Luthman"  
 wrote:

> Pretty sure they all say 411, or 433, or 493, etc.
>
> In fact the crossroads also said 411 I think...
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM, ralph  wrote:
>
>> I can't look again because I just dropped it off at UPS to go back  
>> for RMA.
>> I had never opened this one until now, but the board say 433 and  
>> the case
>> says 433AH.  I bought a 433AH
>> Is the board in a 433AH board marked as such or do they all say 433?
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Randy Cosby
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:22 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> The FCC logo on the RB433AH is right next to the "CE" logo just to  
>> the
>> left of the two (ram?) chips about 2/3 of the way down the board.
>>
>>
>>
>> ralph wrote:
>>> I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
>>> I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known  
>>> supplier
>> of
>>> pre-cased RBs
>>> There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule  
>>> or any
>> FCC
>>> numbers at all.
>>> There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside  
>>> either.  I did
>>> not remove the board and look underneath.
>>>
>>> As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't  
>>> know all
>>> the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details  
>>> about
>> the
>>> certification.
>>> You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows  
>>> replicas of
>>> the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.
>>>
>>> The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement.
>>>
>>
>> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
>>> 9435&native_or_pdf=pdf
>>>
>>> The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data  
>>> including
>> all
>>> the warnings on page 11
>>>
>>
>> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
>>> 9433&native_or_pdf=pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are  
>>> for
>> the
>>> same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in  
>>> different
>>> configurations.
>>> There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:
>>>
>>> R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being  
>>> used as a
>>> "test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label  
>>> must be
>>> placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
>>> WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.
>>>
>>> R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM  
>>> integrator is
>>> still responsible
>>> for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which  
>>> integrates
>> this
>>> module.
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your*  
>>> responsibility
>> to
>>> the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much  
>>> immune to
>>> citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like  
>>> Dennis
>>> probably operates this way.
>>>
>>> It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by  
>>> Deliberant or
>>> Ligowave) becomes certified too.
>>>
>>> I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it  
>>> yourself
>>> instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Gino Villarini]

Don't confuse the FCC aproval of the routerboard emmisions as a CPU  
with the actual FCC certification of a rf system with radio pigtail  
and antenna

Even my 25 year old tv has a FCC label stating it complies with  
emmisions

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:42 PM, "Josh Luthman"  
 wrote:

> Pretty sure they all say 411, or 433, or 493, etc.
>
> In fact the crossroads also said 411 I think...
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM, ralph  wrote:
>
>> I can't look again because I just dropped it off at UPS to go back  
>> for RMA.
>> I had never opened this one until now, but the board say 433 and  
>> the case
>> says 433AH.  I bought a 433AH
>> Is the board in a 433AH board marked as such or do they all say 433?
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Randy Cosby
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:22 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> The FCC logo on the RB433AH is right next to the "CE" logo just to  
>> the
>> left of the two (ram?) chips about 2/3 of the way down the board.
>>
>>
>>
>> ralph wrote:
>>> I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
>>> I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known  
>>> supplier
>> of
>>> pre-cased RBs
>>> There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule  
>>> or any
>> FCC
>>> numbers at all.
>>> There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside  
>>> either.  I did
>>> not remove the board and look underneath.
>>>
>>> As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't  
>>> know all
>>> the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details  
>>> about
>> the
>>> certification.
>>> You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows  
>>> replicas of
>>> the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.
>>>
>>> The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement.
>>>
>>
>> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
>>> 9435&native_or_pdf=pdf
>>>
>>> The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data  
>>> including
>> all
>>> the warnings on page 11
>>>
>>
>> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
>>> 9433&native_or_pdf=pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are  
>>> for
>> the
>>> same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in  
>>> different
>>> configurations.
>>> There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:
>>>
>>> R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being  
>>> used as a
>>> "test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label  
>>> must be
>>> placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
>>> WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.
>>>
>>> R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM  
>>> integrator is
>>> still responsible
>>> for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which  
>>> integrates
>> this
>>> module.
>>>
>>>
>>> So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your*  
>>> responsibility
>> to
>>> the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much  
>>> immune to
>>> citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like  
>>> Dennis
>>> probably operates this way.
>>>
>>> It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by  
>>> Deliberant or
>>> Ligowave) becomes certified too.
>>>
>>> I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it  
>>> yourself
>>> instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just  
>>> like the
>>> one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.
>>>
>>> I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but  
>>> something is
>>> telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to  
>>> check, or
>>> maybe Lonnie can address the issue.
>>>
>>> It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which  
>>> equipment
>> was
>>> and was not.  Some folks would care I think.
>>> Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of  
>>> you do
>> not
>>> care whether or not you are operating legally.
>>>
>>> I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see  
>>> 'em.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>>> boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Randy Cosby
>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see
>>> http://www.routerboard.com/pdf

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Chuck Hogg]

The test results are available on the FCC website.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:27 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Sorry Eje- No need for personal criticism. If you don't like the discussion,
then press delete- but don't try to silence me.

What I would like to see happen is for MT to show us the testing. They
shouldn't have anything to hide.
As has been said before, no one can know whether it was actually tested
before or not and whether it passed or not unless it is marked as such or
the results are published.  Other manufacturers do it so why should they be
any different.

They should be up front with all the info or else people will be left to
draw their own conclusions.

I am a MT user, have been using the 386 stuff in PCs for years and years now
and our entire network is built around it, so I am not anti MT and I
certainly would not spread FUD. I for one would love to know how they tested
and to what standard (A or B computing device) because we might consider
using the boards more if we knew how they were intended to be used.

If you are selling their equipment, perhaps you could ask them to publish
the test results.

Best wishes

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
posts. 

All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
testing done on them. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
numbers at all.
There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
not remove the board and look underneath.

As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
certification.
You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.

The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9435&native_or_pdf=pdf

The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including all
the warnings on page 11
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9433&native_or_pdf=pdf



Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
configurations.
There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:

R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
"test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.

R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
still responsible
for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates this
module.


So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility to
the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
probably operates this way.

It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
Ligowave) becomes certified too.

I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.

I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
maybe Lonnie can address the issue.

It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment was
and was not.  Some folks would care I think. 
Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do not
care whether or not you are operating legally.

I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.

Ralph



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
T

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[3-dB Networks]

I really haven't followed this thread that closely... but with this much
confusion... Mikrotik should probably explain how and why they are FCC
legal.  Most manufacturers put at the end of their user manuals a detailed
explanation of their regulatory compliance... Mikrotik should take the time
to do the same

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com


>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of ralph
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:27 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>Sorry Eje- No need for personal criticism. If you don't like the
>discussion,
>then press delete- but don't try to silence me.
>
>What I would like to see happen is for MT to show us the testing. They
>shouldn't have anything to hide.
>As has been said before, no one can know whether it was actually tested
>before or not and whether it passed or not unless it is marked as such
>or
>the results are published.  Other manufacturers do it so why should they
>be
>any different.
>
>They should be up front with all the info or else people will be left to
>draw their own conclusions.
>
>I am a MT user, have been using the 386 stuff in PCs for years and years
>now
>and our entire network is built around it, so I am not anti MT and I
>certainly would not spread FUD. I for one would love to know how they
>tested
>and to what standard (A or B computing device) because we might consider
>using the boards more if we knew how they were intended to be used.
>
>If you are selling their equipment, perhaps you could ask them to
>publish
>the test results.
>
>Best wishes
>
>Ralph
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
>posts.
>
>All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
>testing done on them.
>
>/ Eje
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of ralph
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
>I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier
>of
>pre-cased RBs
>There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any
>FCC
>numbers at all.
>There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I
>did
>not remove the board and look underneath.
>
>As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know
>all
>the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about
>the
>certification.
>You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas
>of
>the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.
>
>The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement.
>https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_i
>d=82
>9435&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
>The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including
>all
>the warnings on page 11
>https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_i
>d=82
>9433&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
>
>
>Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for
>the
>same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
>configurations.
>There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:
>
>R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
>"test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
>placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
>WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.
>
>R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
>still responsible
>for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates
>this
>module.
>
>
>So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your*
>responsibility to
>the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
>citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
>probably operates this way.
>
>It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
>Ligowave) becomes certified too.
>
>I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it
>yourself
>instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like
>the
>one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.
>
>I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something
>is
>telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check,
>or
>maybe Lonnie can address the issue.
>
>It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment
>was
>and was not.  Some folks would care I think.
>Of course from w

[WISPA] PS2 Stock

[Brian Rohrbacher]

Anyone?  I can't find any.

Brian



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] backhaul choices

[Josh Luthman]

Pretty sure they all say 411, or 433, or 493, etc.

In fact the crossroads also said 411 I think...

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM, ralph  wrote:

> I can't look again because I just dropped it off at UPS to go back for RMA.
> I had never opened this one until now, but the board say 433 and the case
> says 433AH.  I bought a 433AH
> Is the board in a 433AH board marked as such or do they all say 433?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Cosby
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:22 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> The FCC logo on the RB433AH is right next to the "CE" logo just to the
> left of the two (ram?) chips about 2/3 of the way down the board.
>
>
>
> ralph wrote:
> > I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
> > I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier
> of
> > pre-cased RBs
> > There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any
> FCC
> > numbers at all.
> > There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
> > not remove the board and look underneath.
> >
> > As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
> > the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about
> the
> > certification.
> > You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
> > the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.
> >
> > The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement.
> >
>
> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
> > 9435&native_or_pdf=pdf
> >
> > The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including
> all
> > the warnings on page 11
> >
>
> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
> > 9433&native_or_pdf=pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for
> the
> > same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
> > configurations.
> > There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:
> >
> > R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
> > "test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
> > placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
> > WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.
> >
> > R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
> > still responsible
> > for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates
> this
> > module.
> >
> >
> > So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility
> to
> > the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
> > citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
> > probably operates this way.
> >
> > It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
> > Ligowave) becomes certified too.
> >
> > I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
> > instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
> > one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.
> >
> > I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
> > telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
> > maybe Lonnie can address the issue.
> >
> > It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment
> was
> > and was not.  Some folks would care I think.
> > Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do
> not
> > care whether or not you are operating legally.
> >
> > I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Randy Cosby
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
> >
> > What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see
> > http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)
> >
> > Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B
> > certified?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> > Mike Hammett wrote:
> >
> >> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A
> crossroads
> >>
> >
> >
> >> does, however.
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> Mike Hammett
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From: "ralph" 
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> >> Su

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[ralph]

I can't look again because I just dropped it off at UPS to go back for RMA.
I had never opened this one until now, but the board say 433 and the case
says 433AH.  I bought a 433AH
Is the board in a 433AH board marked as such or do they all say 433?


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:22 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The FCC logo on the RB433AH is right next to the "CE" logo just to the 
left of the two (ram?) chips about 2/3 of the way down the board.



ralph wrote:
> I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
> I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier
of
> pre-cased RBs
> There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any
FCC
> numbers at all.
> There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
> not remove the board and look underneath.
>
> As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
> the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about
the
> certification.
> You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
> the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.
>
> The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
>
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
> 9435&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
> The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including
all
> the warnings on page 11
>
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
> 9433&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
>
>
> Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
> same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
> configurations.
> There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:
>
> R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
> "test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
> placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
> WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.
>
> R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
> still responsible
> for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates
this
> module.
>
>
> So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility
to
> the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
> citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
> probably operates this way.
>
> It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
> Ligowave) becomes certified too.
>
> I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
> instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
> one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.
>
> I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
> telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
> maybe Lonnie can address the issue.
>
> It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment
was
> and was not.  Some folks would care I think. 
> Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do
not
> care whether or not you are operating legally.
>
> I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Cosby
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
> http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)
>
> Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
> certified?
>
> Randy
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>   
>> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A
crossroads
>> 
>
>   
>> does, however.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "ralph" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable
the
>>> wireless card.
>>> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
>>> like
>>> your PC.
>>>
>>> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of
>>>   
> the
>   
>>> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for

>>> the
>>> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
>>> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
>>> these
>>> computer shows and fairs a

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[ralph]

Sorry Eje- No need for personal criticism. If you don't like the discussion,
then press delete- but don't try to silence me.

What I would like to see happen is for MT to show us the testing. They
shouldn't have anything to hide.
As has been said before, no one can know whether it was actually tested
before or not and whether it passed or not unless it is marked as such or
the results are published.  Other manufacturers do it so why should they be
any different.

They should be up front with all the info or else people will be left to
draw their own conclusions.

I am a MT user, have been using the 386 stuff in PCs for years and years now
and our entire network is built around it, so I am not anti MT and I
certainly would not spread FUD. I for one would love to know how they tested
and to what standard (A or B computing device) because we might consider
using the boards more if we knew how they were intended to be used.

If you are selling their equipment, perhaps you could ask them to publish
the test results.

Best wishes

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:23 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
posts. 

All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
testing done on them. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
numbers at all.
There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
not remove the board and look underneath.

As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
certification.
You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.

The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9435&native_or_pdf=pdf

The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including all
the warnings on page 11
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9433&native_or_pdf=pdf



Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
configurations.
There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:

R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
"test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.

R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
still responsible
for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates this
module.


So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility to
the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
probably operates this way.

It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
Ligowave) becomes certified too.

I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.

I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
maybe Lonnie can address the issue.

It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment was
and was not.  Some folks would care I think. 
Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do not
care whether or not you are operating legally.

I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.

Ralph



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)

Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
certified?

Randy

Mike Hammett wrote:
> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads

> does, howeve

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Randy Cosby]

The FCC logo on the RB433AH is right next to the "CE" logo just to the 
left of the two (ram?) chips about 2/3 of the way down the board.



ralph wrote:
> I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
> I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
> pre-cased RBs
> There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
> numbers at all.
> There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
> not remove the board and look underneath.
>
> As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
> the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
> certification.
> You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
> the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.
>
> The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
> 9435&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
> The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including all
> the warnings on page 11
> https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
> 9433&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
>
>
> Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
> same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
> configurations.
> There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:
>
> R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
> "test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
> placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
> WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.
>
> R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
> still responsible
> for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates this
> module.
>
>
> So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility to
> the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
> citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
> probably operates this way.
>
> It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
> Ligowave) becomes certified too.
>
> I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
> instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
> one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.
>
> I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
> telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
> maybe Lonnie can address the issue.
>
> It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment was
> and was not.  Some folks would care I think. 
> Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do not
> care whether or not you are operating legally.
>
> I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Cosby
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
> http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)
>
> Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
> certified?
>
> Randy
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>   
>> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads
>> 
>
>   
>> does, however.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "ralph" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
>>> wireless card.
>>> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
>>> like
>>> your PC.
>>>
>>> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of
>>>   
> the
>   
>>> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
>>> the
>>> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
>>> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
>>> these
>>> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
>>> builders
>>> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
>>> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
>>> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
>>> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they
>>>   
> did
>   
>>> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
>>> doing
>>> with the 

Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum

[Brad Belton]

You are correct.  My mistake for comparing an all ODU radio set to a split
architecture radio set.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:19 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum

Throughput accelerator is a compression scheme... so it depends on the
traffic going across it what it is going to deliver.  No matter what
though... it will deliver more traffic with no penalty than the Duo.

If you're going to look at the Apex... compare it to the Horizon Compact...
apples for apples.  

The quantum should be compared to the Giga... which quickly comparing the
two shows the Quantum being equal or better than the Giga at transmit power
and receiver sensitivity

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com

>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Brad Belton
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:11 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>
>This is interesting.  What does "Throughput with Accelerator" and "Up
>to"
>mean?  Is there any explanation of this technology and how they claim it
>works?
>
>It should be noted the Quantum RX Sensitivity required to achieve their
>Modulation Schemes is about 5-7db worse than Trango Apex.  So, it's
>likely
>the Quantum will be downshifting more often than a comparable Apex
>radio.
>
>All in all still pretty impressive and I'm glad to see the bar being
>pushed
>even further up.
>
>Best,
>
>
>Brad
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:41 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>
>I don't think this has been publically released yet...
>
>Overall is a pretty good improvement on the Horizon Duo... and it looks
>like
>it will be cheaper to.
>
>Still waiting on a lot of the technical information... but as I get
>stuff I
>will share :-D
>
>Daniel White
>3-dB Networks
>http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:27 AM
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>>
>>I forgot what list we were recently discussing this on, but DragonWave
>>just announced their Quantum product.  It claims to boost throughput
>>without using any more spectrum.  2.5X increase in efficiency, up to 4
>>GB/s per link.
>>
>>
>>-
>>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 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] backhaul choices

[Chuck Hogg]

They have a RB/411r which has it onboard.

Regards,
Chuck Hogg
Shelby Broadband
502-722-9292
ch...@shelbybb.com
http://www.shelbybb.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
does, however.


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



--
From: "ralph" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
> wireless card.
> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
> like
> your PC.
>
> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
> the
> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
> these
> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
> builders
> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
> doing
> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.
>
> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
> routerboards are required to be certified.
> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
> certified.
>
> ===
> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
> computing
> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
> uses
> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
> in
> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
> for
> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
> devices.
>
>
> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>
> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
> public.
> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
> than the Class A devices.
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
> radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
> of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
> outside that MT offers to only its distributors.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> That's been the ongoing argument.
>
> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC
> certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> B

Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum

[3-dB Networks]

Throughput accelerator is a compression scheme... so it depends on the
traffic going across it what it is going to deliver.  No matter what
though... it will deliver more traffic with no penalty than the Duo.

If you're going to look at the Apex... compare it to the Horizon Compact...
apples for apples.  

The quantum should be compared to the Giga... which quickly comparing the
two shows the Quantum being equal or better than the Giga at transmit power
and receiver sensitivity

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com

>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Brad Belton
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:11 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>
>This is interesting.  What does "Throughput with Accelerator" and "Up
>to"
>mean?  Is there any explanation of this technology and how they claim it
>works?
>
>It should be noted the Quantum RX Sensitivity required to achieve their
>Modulation Schemes is about 5-7db worse than Trango Apex.  So, it's
>likely
>the Quantum will be downshifting more often than a comparable Apex
>radio.
>
>All in all still pretty impressive and I'm glad to see the bar being
>pushed
>even further up.
>
>Best,
>
>
>Brad
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:41 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>
>I don't think this has been publically released yet...
>
>Overall is a pretty good improvement on the Horizon Duo... and it looks
>like
>it will be cheaper to.
>
>Still waiting on a lot of the technical information... but as I get
>stuff I
>will share :-D
>
>Daniel White
>3-dB Networks
>http://www.3dbnetworks.com
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:27 AM
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>>
>>I forgot what list we were recently discussing this on, but DragonWave
>>just announced their Quantum product.  It claims to boost throughput
>>without using any more spectrum.  2.5X increase in efficiency, up to 4
>>GB/s per link.
>>
>>
>>-
>>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] DragonWave Quantum

[Brad Belton]

This is interesting.  What does "Throughput with Accelerator" and "Up to"
mean?  Is there any explanation of this technology and how they claim it
works?

It should be noted the Quantum RX Sensitivity required to achieve their
Modulation Schemes is about 5-7db worse than Trango Apex.  So, it's likely
the Quantum will be downshifting more often than a comparable Apex radio.

All in all still pretty impressive and I'm glad to see the bar being pushed
even further up.

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:41 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum

I don't think this has been publically released yet... 

Overall is a pretty good improvement on the Horizon Duo... and it looks like
it will be cheaper to.  

Still waiting on a lot of the technical information... but as I get stuff I
will share :-D

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com


>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 8:27 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] DragonWave Quantum
>
>I forgot what list we were recently discussing this on, but DragonWave 
>just announced their Quantum product.  It claims to boost throughput 
>without using any more spectrum.  2.5X increase in efficiency, up to 4 
>GB/s per link.
>
>
>-
>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] Ligo Backhauls

[Josh Luthman]

$8500 per this:

http://www.wisptech.com/index.php/Microwave_Backhaul_Comparison_Chart

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM,  wrote:

> What does 24 GHz pricing look like for a link?
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Cosby 
>
> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:12:28
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ligo Backhauls
>
>
> I'm getting close to ordering some soon, 24 and 11GHz.
>
> You may want to check the FCC filing for the 24Ghz version.  It's quite
> enlightening.  In my case, it increased my confidence in the product,
> know who builds it and what their track record is.  I won't give it away
> here :)
>
> Randy
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
> > I know at least two people are using 3.65 and 24ghz LigoWave units.  From
> > what they say they're great.  Please post your experiences you two!
> >
> > Josh Luthman
> > Office: 937-552-2340
> > Direct: 937-552-2343
> > 1100 Wayne St
> > Suite 1337
> > Troy, OH 45373
> >
> > "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> > improbable, must be the truth."
> > --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Shoemaker <
> > shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Can I piggyback here?
> >>
> >> Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed ones for
> >> that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any amount of
> >> downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance out of
> >> them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?
> >>
> >> Patrick Shoemaker
> >> Vector Data Systems LLC
> >> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> >> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> >> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
> >>
> >>
> >> Jayson Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>> So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
> >>>
> >>> Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
> >>>
> >>> Jayson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 
> >>
> >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >>> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 
> >>
> >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>>
> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>
> >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >>
> >>
> 
> >>
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> >
> 
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
> --
> Randy Cosby
> Vice President
> InfoWest, Inc
>
> work: 435-773-6071
> email: rco...@infowest.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Ligo Backhauls

[lakeland]

What does 24 GHz pricing look like for a link?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Randy Cosby 

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:12:28 
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ligo Backhauls


I'm getting close to ordering some soon, 24 and 11GHz. 

You may want to check the FCC filing for the 24Ghz version.  It's quite 
enlightening.  In my case, it increased my confidence in the product, 
know who builds it and what their track record is.  I won't give it away 
here :)

Randy


Josh Luthman wrote:
> I know at least two people are using 3.65 and 24ghz LigoWave units.  From
> what they say they're great.  Please post your experiences you two!
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Shoemaker <
> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Can I piggyback here?
>>
>> Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed ones for
>> that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any amount of
>> downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance out of
>> them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?
>>
>> Patrick Shoemaker
>> Vector Data Systems LLC
>> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
>> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>>
>>
>> Jayson Baker wrote:
>> 
>>> So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
>>>
>>> Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
>>>
>>> Jayson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   

-- 
Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc

work: 435-773-6071
email: rco...@infowest.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby




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] Death Valley CA WISP

[Christopher Erickson]

There might be some potential line-of-site microwave shots
to communities just above and outside of Death Valley.
Beatty, AZ looks promising.

"My Advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Network Design Engineer
Waikoloa Village, HI 96738
N19?57' W155?47'
 

> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:13 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
> 
> 
> I agree... the Furnace Creek hotspots are actually all offline at the
> moment... they were fed by T-1 lines...
> 
> Anyways as I just posted I'm looking to build backhaul in... so hoping to
> buy bandwidth from a WISP somewhere nearby
> 
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
> http://www.3dbnetworks.com
> 
> 
> >-Original Message-
> >From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> >Behalf Of Christopher Erickson
> >Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:32 AM
> >To: WISPA General List
> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
> >
> >Furnace Creek has a cafe hotspot and an intermittent ranger station
> >hotspot and Stovepipe Wells might have a hotspot by now as well.  No
> >WISP service that I found.  And almost no cellular coverage anywhere.
> >
> >Since Death Valley barely has any year-around residents and covers
> >such a large area, it probably doesn't offer much of a business case.
> >
> >"My Advice is always free and worth every penny!"
> >
> >-Christopher Erickson
> >Network Design Engineer
> >Waikoloa Village, HI 96738
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
> >> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:09 AM
> >> To: 'WISPA General List'
> >> Subject: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Daniel White
> >>
> >> 3-dB Networks
> >>
> >> http://www.3dbnetworks.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 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] backhaul choices

[Eje Gustafsson]

Time to stop this thread since your just spreading FUD.. Read my other
posts. 

All MikroTik products do have the appropriate FCC certification and/or
testing done on them. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
numbers at all.
There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
not remove the board and look underneath.

As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
certification.
You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.

The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9435&native_or_pdf=pdf

The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including all
the warnings on page 11
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9433&native_or_pdf=pdf



Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
configurations.
There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:

R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
"test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.

R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
still responsible
for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates this
module.


So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility to
the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
probably operates this way.

It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
Ligowave) becomes certified too.

I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.

I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
maybe Lonnie can address the issue.

It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment was
and was not.  Some folks would care I think. 
Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do not
care whether or not you are operating legally.

I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.

Ralph



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)

Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
certified?

Randy

Mike Hammett wrote:
> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads

> does, however.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "ralph" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>   
>> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
>> wireless card.
>> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
>> like
>> your PC.
>>
>> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of
the
>> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
>> the
>> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
>> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
>> these
>> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
>> builders
>> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
>> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
>> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
>> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they
did
>> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
>> doing
>> with 

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Eje Gustafsson]

You found the RB411R unit which do have a onboard radio. The regular RB411
does not have a built on radio. The RB411R needs to be certified under part
15 as a transceiver and has been certified. The normal RB411 does not have a
transceiver on them and been self tested as a Class B device and there for
does not show up in the FCC id database because no filing of application is
needed for a Class A or Class B device. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:13 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Are you sure?
When I looked at the internal photos of what they had tested, on the FCC
site, it looked like there was a pigtail from an N connector plugged onto
the mother board.
I saw a mini-pci connector too, but it appeared to be empty.
I will look again- maybe my old eyes are playing tricks.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
does, however.


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



--
From: "ralph" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
> wireless card.
> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
> like
> your PC.
>
> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
> the
> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
> these
> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
> builders
> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
> doing
> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.
>
> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
> routerboards are required to be certified.
> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
> certified.
>
> ===
> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
> computing
> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
> uses
> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
> in
> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
> for
> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
> devices.
>
>
> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>
> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
> public.
> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
> than the Class A devices.
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WIS

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Eje Gustafsson]

And the part 15 type B certification is a self certification process with no
filing needed with the FCC and there for no FCC id number provided. Majority
of the testing is line noise testing ie what possible signals the device
might be outputting into the electrical grid. That is where the most
stringent requirements are on a type B device. 

Your mixing up the type class B certification with full Part 15
certification testing. Yes the crossroads and the rb411r have full
certification because they have transceivers that needs certified built on
to the unit. 
But a regular class B device does not. Just take a look at any regular
computer part with exception of a radio card or modem. You will find NO FCC
id's on any of those devices but more than likely you will find a FCC logo
on them to indicate that the testing been done and that the device passes
and the manufacturer have the testing documentation in their own company
files. 

Class A restrictions are lower than Class B restrictions because they are
expected to be used/installed by professionals while a Class B device is
installed by the less technical knowledged. Take a regular computer for
example the parts and pieces are Class B certified yet you can use a
computer in a business/commercial environment because a Class B device
exceeds the Class A requirements. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
wireless card.
It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just like
your PC.

So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for the
user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had these
computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc builders
were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are doing
with the Mikrotik stuff.

As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
wireless.

I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
routerboards are required to be certified.
If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
certified.

===
Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a computing
device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and uses
radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement in
any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards for
digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
devices. 


Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device that
is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment. 

Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device that
is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general public.
Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
than the Class A devices. 
===








-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
radio matters, as its c

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[ralph]

Are you sure?
When I looked at the internal photos of what they had tested, on the FCC
site, it looked like there was a pigtail from an N connector plugged onto
the mother board.
I saw a mini-pci connector too, but it appeared to be empty.
I will look again- maybe my old eyes are playing tricks.



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
does, however.


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



--
From: "ralph" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
> wireless card.
> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
> like
> your PC.
>
> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
> the
> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
> these
> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
> builders
> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
> doing
> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.
>
> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
> routerboards are required to be certified.
> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
> certified.
>
> ===
> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
> computing
> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
> uses
> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
> in
> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
> for
> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
> devices.
>
>
> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>
> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
> public.
> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
> than the Class A devices.
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
> radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
> of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
> outside that MT offers to only its distributors.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> That's been the ongoing argument.
>
> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC
> 

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[ralph]

I don't see anything like that on the pdf you referred to.
I have in my hand a 433AH in a case that came from a well known supplier of
pre-cased RBs
There are no markings on the case about compliance with any rule or any FCC
numbers at all.
There is nothing that says FCC on the top of the RB inside either.  I did
not remove the board and look underneath.

As far as where you go to see if it is certified or not, I don't know all
the places, but there is usually a sticker that gives the details about the
certification.
You can also check the FCC filing, which I believe even shows replicas of
the sticker. I think the user's manual also mentions the approval.

The Crossroads FCC filing shows the sticker and its placement. 
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9435&native_or_pdf=pdf

The user's manual has an entire page dedicated to the FCC data including all
the warnings on page 11
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=82
9433&native_or_pdf=pdf



Mikrotik has very little stuff certified. Most of the listings are for the
same devices, just certified on different frequencies or in different
configurations.
There are the 2 things I already mentioned, as well as these:

R5H (a radio card only)  photos show it in a routerboard being used as a
"test fixture" but test was only for the card, and an FCC label must be
placed on the outside of the final enclosure.  Actually the same as
WLM54AGP23  but FCC shown so record of this device.

R52 : This module is intended for OEM integrator. The OEM integrator is
still responsible
for the FCC compliance requirement of the end product, which integrates this
module.


So if you go and put an R52 in anything, it becomes *your* responsibility to
the FCC to maintain compliance.  MT appears to be pretty much immune to
citations on this issue.   One could conclude that someone like Dennis
probably operates this way.

It isn't just MT. The Williboard stuff (when assembled by Deliberant or
Ligowave) becomes certified too.

I also seem to remember that the Pronghorn Metro stuff has do it yourself
instructions showing exactly how to build the unit so it is just like the
one they had certified, right down to the internal pigtail.

I can't locate my StarOS equipment to see what they did, but something is
telling me that they have the proper stickers too.  I'd have to check, or
maybe Lonnie can address the issue.

It would really be nice to draw together a list of just which equipment was
and was not.  Some folks would care I think. 
Of course from what I have read and seen over the years, many of you do not
care whether or not you are operating legally.

I'm not trying to start anything- just stating the facts as I see 'em.

Ralph



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 1:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)

Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
certified?

Randy

Mike Hammett wrote:
> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads

> does, however.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "ralph" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>   
>> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
>> wireless card.
>> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
>> like
>> your PC.
>>
>> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of
the
>> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
>> the
>> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
>> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
>> these
>> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
>> builders
>> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
>> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
>> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
>> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they
did
>> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
>> doing
>> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
board
>> wireless.
>>
>> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
>> routerboards are required to be certified.
>> If I were you, I would demand that MT have

Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP

[3-dB Networks]

I agree... the Furnace Creek hotspots are actually all offline at the
moment... they were fed by T-1 lines...

Anyways as I just posted I'm looking to build backhaul in... so hoping to
buy bandwidth from a WISP somewhere nearby

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com


>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Christopher Erickson
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:32 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
>
>Furnace Creek has a cafe hotspot and an intermittent ranger station
>hotspot and Stovepipe Wells might have a hotspot by now as well.  No
>WISP service that I found.  And almost no cellular coverage anywhere.
>
>Since Death Valley barely has any year-around residents and covers
>such a large area, it probably doesn't offer much of a business case.
>
>"My Advice is always free and worth every penny!"
>
>-Christopher Erickson
>Network Design Engineer
>Waikoloa Village, HI 96738
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
>> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:09 AM
>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>> Subject: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
>>
>>
>> Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley?
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel White
>>
>> 3-dB Networks
>>
>> http://www.3dbnetworks.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] Death Valley CA WISP

[3-dB Networks]

Furnace Creek Ranch would be nice... but realistically I'm looking for a PoP
and considering building my own backhaul into the site.

All they could find was T-1 lines... doing it as a favor ;-D

Daniel White
3-dB Networks
http://www.3dbnetworks.com


>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>Behalf Of Jack Unger
>Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:17 AM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
>
>Death Valley is a fairly large area. Can you be more specific about
>where you are looking for coverage?
>
>3-dB Networks wrote:
>> Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley?
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel White
>>
>> 3-dB Networks
>>
>> http://www.3dbnetworks.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/
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] backhaul choices

[Eje Gustafsson]

The Routerboards without built in radio cards are Part B certified devices
(which is a self certification process with no filing with the FCC
required). The manufacturer just need to have the documentation to provide
in case of a FCC inquiry. If memory serves me right MikroTik used to have
their test reports on their routerboard.com website before they changed the
design a while back. A part B device that passes the line out mission
testing is allowed to bear the FCC symbol on them. But that does not
necessary mean that a part B device that does not bear the symbol does not
pass but of course could mean that it has not been tested at all. A device
that do have the symbol on it and has not been tested or does not pass is in
violation and "fines" can be issued (additional fines that is for using the
symbol on a non passing device, a device sold that does not pass means
violation and fines as well). 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Randy Cosby
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)

Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
certified?

Randy

Mike Hammett wrote:
> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads

> does, however.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "ralph" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>   
>> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
>> wireless card.
>> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
>> like
>> your PC.
>>
>> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of
the
>> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
>> the
>> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
>> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
>> these
>> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
>> builders
>> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
>> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
>> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
>> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they
did
>> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
>> doing
>> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on
board
>> wireless.
>>
>> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
>> routerboards are required to be certified.
>> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
>> certified.
>>
>> ===
>> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
>> computing
>> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
>> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses
(cycles)
>> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
>> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
>> uses
>> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
>> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
>> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
>> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement

>> in
>> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C
of
>> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
>> for
>> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
>> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
>> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals
and
>> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
>> devices.
>>
>>
>> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
>> that
>> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>>
>> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
>> that
>> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such
devices
>> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
>> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
>> public.
>> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where
the
>> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF em

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Dennis Burgess]

Not to mention less than 6 watts of power usage if I remember!

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
Author of "Learn RouterOS"


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Eje Gustafsson
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:35 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The new RB411R do have a onboard wireless interface. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
does, however.


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



--
From: "ralph" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
> wireless card.
> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
> like
> your PC.
>
> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
> the
> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
> these
> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
> builders
> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
> doing
> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.
>
> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
> routerboards are required to be certified.
> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
> certified.
>
> ===
> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
> computing
> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
> uses
> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
> in
> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
> for
> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
> devices.
>
>
> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>
> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
> public.
> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
> than the Class A devices.
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
> radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
> of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
> outside th

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Eje Gustafsson]

The new RB411R do have a onboard wireless interface. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
does, however.


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



--
From: "ralph" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
> wireless card.
> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
> like
> your PC.
>
> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
> the
> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
> these
> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
> builders
> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
> doing
> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.
>
> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
> routerboards are required to be certified.
> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
> certified.
>
> ===
> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
> computing
> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
> uses
> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
> in
> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
> for
> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
> devices.
>
>
> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>
> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
> public.
> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
> than the Class A devices.
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
> radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
> of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
> outside that MT offers to only its distributors.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> That's been the ongoing argument.
>
> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC
> certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
> T

Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP

[Christopher Erickson]

Furnace Creek has a cafe hotspot and an intermittent ranger station
hotspot and Stovepipe Wells might have a hotspot by now as well.  No
WISP service that I found.  And almost no cellular coverage anywhere.

Since Death Valley barely has any year-around residents and covers
such a large area, it probably doesn't offer much of a business case.

"My Advice is always free and worth every penny!"

-Christopher Erickson
Network Design Engineer
Waikoloa Village, HI 96738
 

> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 10:09 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP
> 
> 
> Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley?
> 
>  
> 
> Daniel White
> 
> 3-dB Networks
> 
> http://www.3dbnetworks.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] backhaul choices

[Randy Cosby]

What does the FCC symbol stamped on my RB433AH signify?  (see 
http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb433ah.pdf)

Where does one look to see what devices are FCC part-15 Class A and B 
certified?

Randy

Mike Hammett wrote:
> An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
> does, however.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "ralph" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
>   
>> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
>> wireless card.
>> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
>> like
>> your PC.
>>
>> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
>> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
>> the
>> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
>> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
>> these
>> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
>> builders
>> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
>> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
>> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
>> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
>> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
>> doing
>> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>>
>> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
>> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
>> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
>> wireless.
>>
>> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
>> routerboards are required to be certified.
>> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
>> certified.
>>
>> ===
>> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
>> computing
>> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
>> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
>> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
>> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
>> uses
>> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
>> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
>> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
>> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
>> in
>> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
>> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
>> for
>> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
>> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
>> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
>> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
>> devices.
>>
>>
>> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
>> that
>> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>>
>> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
>> that
>> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
>> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
>> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
>> public.
>> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
>> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
>> than the Class A devices.
>> ===
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
>> radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
>> of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
>> outside that MT offers to only its distributors.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:12 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> That's been the ongoing argument.
>>
>> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC
>> certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of os1

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Mike Hammett]

An RB411 does not have onboard wireless at all, only a mPCI.  A crossroads 
does, however.


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



--
From: "ralph" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 12:22 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

> Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
> wireless card.
> It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just 
> like
> your PC.
>
> So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
> things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for 
> the
> user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
> some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had 
> these
> computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc 
> builders
> were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
> affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
> The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
> builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
> not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are 
> doing
> with the Mikrotik stuff.
>
> As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
> Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
> They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
> wireless.
>
> I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
> routerboards are required to be certified.
> If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
> certified.
>
> ===
> Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a 
> computing
> device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
> uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
> per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
> that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and 
> uses
> radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
> functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
> recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
> frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement 
> in
> any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
> this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards 
> for
> digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
> operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
> control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
> peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
> devices.
>
>
> Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment.
>
> Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device 
> that
> is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
> include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
> similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general 
> public.
> Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
> likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
> than the Class A devices.
> ===
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
> radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
> of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
> outside that MT offers to only its distributors.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:12 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> That's been the ongoing argument.
>
> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC
> certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>
> Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that
> transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure
> need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio
> needs to be certified

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[ralph]

Don't forget that routerboard is a computer. It does more than enable the
wireless card.
It needs to have a Part 15 computing device certification as well, just like
your PC.

So regardless of the radio card and the antenna and any of the rest of the
things that people are disagreeing on, it still boils down to a fine for the
user if the RB causes interference and is found to be not certified.  If
some of you were around when PC clones were being first built, we had these
computer shows and fairs and even some Hamfests where the local pc builders
were showing their wares.  A popular PC case was a convenient flip top
affair that allowed easy access to the cards inside without using screws.
The FCC made many a visit to these shows, shutting down and fining the
builders of these systems. They did not build the motherboard and they did
not build the case, they just *assembled* it, just like you folks are doing
with the Mikrotik stuff.

As far as I can tell from the FCC info, only 2 routerboards have any FCC
Part 15 Class A or B computing device approval.
They are the Crossroads and the RB411- both of which already have on board
wireless.

I will quote part 15.3 here and you can decide whether or not your
routerboards are required to be certified.
If I were you, I would demand that MT have all their computing devices
certified.

===
Digital device:§ 15.3 (k) Digital device. (Previously defined as a computing
device). An unintentional radiator (device or system) that generates and
uses timing signals or pulses at a rate in excess of 9,000 pulses (cycles)
per second and uses digital techniques; inclusive of telephone equipment
that uses digital techniques or any device or system that generates and uses
radio frequency energy for the purpose of performing data processing
functions, such as electronic computations, operations, transformations,
recording, filing, sorting, storage, retrieval, or transfer. A radio
frequency device that is specifically subject to an emanation requirement in
any other FCC Rule Part or an intentional radiator subject to Subpart C of
this Part that contains a digital device is not subject to the standards for
digital devices, provided the digital device is used only to enable
operation of the radio frequency device and the digital device does not
control additional functions or capabilities. Note: Computer terminals and
peripherals that are intended to be connected to a computer are digital
devices. 


Class A digital device: A Class "A" digital device is a digital device that
is marketed for use in a commercial, industrial or business environment. 

Class B digital device: A Class "B" digital device is a digital device that
is marketed for use in a residential environment. Examples of such devices
include, but are not limited to, personal computers, calculators, and
similar electronic devices that are marketed for use by the general public.
Class B equipment, intended for use in a residential environment where the
likelihood of RFI is greater, must meet much stricter RF emission limits
than the Class A devices. 
===








-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 7:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

The way I understand it, the routerboard don't matter, the antenna, and
radio matters, as its certified as a system, with xx gain of this type
of antenna.  You also have to have the FCC information, etc, on the
outside that MT offers to only its distributors.  

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jerry Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

That's been the ongoing argument. 

I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC
certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that  
transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure  
need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio  
needs to be certified, not the whole car.

Greg
On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote:

> Pretty broad statement: "MT is FCC Certified :)"
> Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if  
> they are,
> that does not an FCC certified system make.
> Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems.  
> Something
> like the RB/card/enclosure combination.
> Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number  
> for
> *that system*.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [m

Re: [WISPA] Death Valley CA WISP

[Jack Unger]

Death Valley is a fairly large area. Can you be more specific about 
where you are looking for coverage?

3-dB Networks wrote:
> Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley?
>
>  
>
> Daniel White
>
> 3-dB Networks
>
> http://www.3dbnetworks.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/
>
>
>   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.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] Death Valley CA WISP

[3-dB Networks]

Anyone know of any WISP's near Death Valley?

 

Daniel White

3-dB Networks

http://www.3dbnetworks.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] Ligo Backhauls

[Randy Cosby]

You gave it away

160 employees, lots of installs in many countries.  Seems to be a pretty 
well-tested, well-respected product line.

I don't know if the licensed (11, 18, 23ghz) models are from the same 
company. They seem higher performance than what Saf technika makes.

Randy


Gino Villarini wrote:
> Saf technika
>
> Sent from my Motorola Startac...
>
>
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 12:13 PM, "Randy Cosby"  wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm getting close to ordering some soon, 24 and 11GHz.
>>
>> You may want to check the FCC filing for the 24Ghz version.  It's  
>> quite
>> enlightening.  In my case, it increased my confidence in the product,
>> know who builds it and what their track record is.  I won't give it  
>> away
>> here :)
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>> 
>>> I know at least two people are using 3.65 and 24ghz LigoWave  
>>> units.  From
>>> what they say they're great.  Please post your experiences you two!
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
>>> improbable, must be the truth."
>>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Shoemaker <
>>> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Can I piggyback here?

 Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed  
 ones for
 that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any  
 amount of
 downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance  
 out of
 them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?

 Patrick Shoemaker
 Vector Data Systems LLC
 shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
 office: (301) 358-1690 x36
 http://www.vectordatasystems.com


 Jayson Baker wrote:

 
> So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
>
> Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
>
> Jayson
>
>
>
>
>   
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 

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

 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/

 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 --- 
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>   
>> -- 
>> Randy Cosby
>> Vice President
>> InfoWest, Inc
>>
>> work: 435-773-6071
>> email: rco...@infowest.com
>>
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby
>>
>>
>>
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   

-- 
Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc

work: 435-773-6071
email: rco...@infowest.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby




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

Re: [WISPA] Ligo Backhauls

[Gino Villarini]

Saf technika

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Sep 16, 2009, at 12:13 PM, "Randy Cosby"  wrote:

> I'm getting close to ordering some soon, 24 and 11GHz.
>
> You may want to check the FCC filing for the 24Ghz version.  It's  
> quite
> enlightening.  In my case, it increased my confidence in the product,
> know who builds it and what their track record is.  I won't give it  
> away
> here :)
>
> Randy
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>> I know at least two people are using 3.65 and 24ghz LigoWave  
>> units.  From
>> what they say they're great.  Please post your experiences you two!
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
>> improbable, must be the truth."
>> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Shoemaker <
>> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Can I piggyback here?
>>>
>>> Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed  
>>> ones for
>>> that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any  
>>> amount of
>>> downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance  
>>> out of
>>> them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?
>>>
>>> Patrick Shoemaker
>>> Vector Data Systems LLC
>>> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
>>> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>>> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Jayson Baker wrote:
>>>
 So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?

 Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?

 Jayson




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


>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>
 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

>>>
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> --- 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
> -- 
> Randy Cosby
> Vice President
> InfoWest, Inc
>
> work: 435-773-6071
> email: rco...@infowest.com
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby
>
>
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> 
> 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] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade tp Zero then drop- repeat.

[Josh Luthman]

You're not using nstreme are you?

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if
> anyone has any insight.
>
> A summary config is
>
> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags VLAN
> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself
> does
> not have any VLAN configured.
>
> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on everything.
> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces configured.
> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created
> for
> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
> interfaces
> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three WDS
> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under
> one
> Bridge.
>
> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has
> two
> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather. The
> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave.
> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith
> test continually at consistent speed.
>
> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS
> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test.
>
> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A PS,
> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS
> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith
> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the following
> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then
> slowly
> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps, etc,
> down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and
> immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and
> the
> same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same thing
> applies, because it receives also.
>
> Noise is low at teh SU, about -67, and -74 at AP.  At first I thought it
> was
> noise at the IP, because occastionally SNR gets very low. .But
> SubscriberA has a lower signal at -84 and does not experience the same
> problem.  Just for grins, I tried playing around with TRansmit power at the
> SubscriberB, but that had no positive effect.  As well, as a test, I
> disabled the second WDS interface to SubscriberA, and no change.
>
> To be clear... SubscriberA and SubscriberB each have their own WDS
> interface
> configured on WLAN1 of the 433AH AP.
> I am using embedded MTOS V 3.10 on each.
>
> What is causing this problem?  Why is speed received from my SubscriberB
> incrementally degrading and breaking link?
>
> Bridge loops? Is my config valid? RB411 Bug?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetpZero then drop- repeat.

[Josh Luthman]

..."with no loss of config" is not exactly true - it depends on what version
you're running before.  Some upgrades brick, some do it flawless.  If you're
coming form anything in 3.x to 3.28 you should be ok, though I'd upgrade to
3.13 first.

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Mac Dearman  wrote:

> Tom,
>
>  Be sure to upgrade the bios firmware as well when you go to 3.28 You
> can upgrade the firmware with no loss of config, but to upgrade the bios
> you
> have to be in the CLI. System routerboard print (shows you the version you
> are running with upgrade available) Then type "system routerboard upgrade"
> and then reboot
>
> We have been experiencing a few odd issues as well.
>
> Mac
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:15 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> > degradetpZero then drop- repeat.
> >
> > PAul,
> > I'll try updating the firmware, that makes sense to try.
> > Upgrading from 3.10 to 3.28, is it likely that I can do that remotely
> > without my client configuration getting lost in the process?
> > (I know how to upgrade packages, I just didn't know if config files are
> > consistent through all the V3.X revs)
> >
> > Tom,
> > We replaced both XR900s on both sides of link.  So its not a bad radio
> > card.
> > We did not replace the RB 411, yet. Its also the first time we used a
> > 411 w/
> > 900Mhz card, so we dont have a track record for knowing compatibilty,
> > yet.
> >
> > Tom DeReggi
> > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Tom Sharples" 
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> > degradetpZero then drop- repeat.
> >
> >
> > > Maybe just bad hardware at Subscriber B? Last week we had an XR-9 ptp
> > link
> > > in Houston that behaved somewhat similarly, great speed in one
> > direction,
> > > but next to nothing in the other. Shotgunning the radio & motherboard
> > (an
> > > Alix) fixed it. Haven't gotten it back yet so don't know which went
> > bad.
> > >
> > > Tom S.
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> > > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:25 PM
> > > Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> > degrade
> > > tpZero then drop- repeat.
> > >
> > >
> > >>I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve.
> > Wondering if
> > >> anyone has any insight.
> > >>
> > >> A summary config is
> > >>
> > >> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
> > >> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and
> > untags
> > >> VLAN
> > >> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT
> > itself
> > >> does
> > >> not have any VLAN configured.
> > >>
> > >> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on
> > >> everything.
> > >> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces
> > configured.
> > >> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface
> > created
> > >> for
> > >> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
> > >> interfaces
> > >> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three
> > WDS
> > >> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather
> > under
> > >> one
> > >> Bridge.
> > >>
> > >> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it
> > has
> > >> two
> > >> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged
> > togeather.
> > >> The
> > >> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS
> > Slave.
> > >> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT
> > bandwdith
> > >> test continually at consistent speed.
> > >>
> > >> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for
> > WDS
> > >> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith
> > test.
> > >>
> > >> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a
> > 24V-1A
> > >> PS,
> > >> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set
> > for WDS
> > >> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT
> > Bandwdith
> > >> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the
> > >> following
> > >> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
> > >> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps,
> > then
> > >> slowly
> > >> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kb

[WISPA] longhorn towers

[Marco Coelho]

Does anyone know what became of this company?

They used to be in Austin TX

Thanks!

-- 
Marco C. Coelho
Argon Technologies Inc.
POB 875
Greenville, TX 75403-0875
903-455-5036



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 Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetpZero then drop- repeat.

[Mac Dearman]

Tom,

 Be sure to upgrade the bios firmware as well when you go to 3.28 You
can upgrade the firmware with no loss of config, but to upgrade the bios you
have to be in the CLI. System routerboard print (shows you the version you
are running with upgrade available) Then type "system routerboard upgrade"
and then reboot

We have been experiencing a few odd issues as well.

Mac



> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:15 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> degradetpZero then drop- repeat.
> 
> PAul,
> I'll try updating the firmware, that makes sense to try.
> Upgrading from 3.10 to 3.28, is it likely that I can do that remotely
> without my client configuration getting lost in the process?
> (I know how to upgrade packages, I just didn't know if config files are
> consistent through all the V3.X revs)
> 
> Tom,
> We replaced both XR900s on both sides of link.  So its not a bad radio
> card.
> We did not replace the RB 411, yet. Its also the first time we used a
> 411 w/
> 900Mhz card, so we dont have a track record for knowing compatibilty,
> yet.
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom Sharples" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> degradetpZero then drop- repeat.
> 
> 
> > Maybe just bad hardware at Subscriber B? Last week we had an XR-9 ptp
> link
> > in Houston that behaved somewhat similarly, great speed in one
> direction,
> > but next to nothing in the other. Shotgunning the radio & motherboard
> (an
> > Alix) fixed it. Haven't gotten it back yet so don't know which went
> bad.
> >
> > Tom S.
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:25 PM
> > Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed
> degrade
> > tpZero then drop- repeat.
> >
> >
> >>I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve.
> Wondering if
> >> anyone has any insight.
> >>
> >> A summary config is
> >>
> >> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
> >> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and
> untags
> >> VLAN
> >> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT
> itself
> >> does
> >> not have any VLAN configured.
> >>
> >> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on
> >> everything.
> >> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces
> configured.
> >> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface
> created
> >> for
> >> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
> >> interfaces
> >> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three
> WDS
> >> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather
> under
> >> one
> >> Bridge.
> >>
> >> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it
> has
> >> two
> >> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged
> togeather.
> >> The
> >> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS
> Slave.
> >> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT
> bandwdith
> >> test continually at consistent speed.
> >>
> >> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for
> WDS
> >> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith
> test.
> >>
> >> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a
> 24V-1A
> >> PS,
> >> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set
> for WDS
> >> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT
> Bandwdith
> >> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the
> >> following
> >> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
> >> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps,
> then
> >> slowly
> >> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to
> 100kbps,
> >> etc,
> >> down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects,
> and
> >> immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so,
> and
> >> the
> >> same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same
> >> thing
> >> applies, because it receives also.
> >>
> >> Noise is low at teh SU, about -67, and -74 at AP.  At first I
> thought it
> >> was
> >> noise at the IP, because occastionally SNR gets very low. .But
> >> SubscriberA has a lower signal at -84 and does not experience the
> same
> >> problem.  Just for grins, I tried playing around with TRansmit power
> at
> >> the
> >> SubscriberB, but that had no positive effect.  As well, as a test, I
> >> disabled the second WDS interface

Re: [WISPA] Ligo Backhauls

[Randy Cosby]

I'm getting close to ordering some soon, 24 and 11GHz. 

You may want to check the FCC filing for the 24Ghz version.  It's quite 
enlightening.  In my case, it increased my confidence in the product, 
know who builds it and what their track record is.  I won't give it away 
here :)

Randy


Josh Luthman wrote:
> I know at least two people are using 3.65 and 24ghz LigoWave units.  From
> what they say they're great.  Please post your experiences you two!
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Shoemaker <
> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Can I piggyback here?
>>
>> Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed ones for
>> that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any amount of
>> downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance out of
>> them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?
>>
>> Patrick Shoemaker
>> Vector Data Systems LLC
>> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
>> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
>> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>>
>>
>> Jayson Baker wrote:
>> 
>>> So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
>>>
>>> Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
>>>
>>> Jayson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>   
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   

-- 
Randy Cosby
Vice President
InfoWest, Inc

work: 435-773-6071
email: rco...@infowest.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/randycosby




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] backhaul choices

[Randy Cosby]

Thank you Brian.  That is exactly what I wanted to know.  Vendors who 
spend the time to go through the DFS2 certification process will be 
rewarded.. with $.

Randy


Brian Webster wrote:
> I think the point about certification was specifically asked regarding 
> the 5.4 version and having been approved for DFS.
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
>
>
> Jerry Richardson wrote:
>> That's been the ongoing argument. 
>>
>> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC 
>> certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that  
>> transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure  
>> need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio  
>> needs to be certified, not the whole car.
>>
>> Greg
>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> Pretty broad statement: "MT is FCC Certified :)"
>>> Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if  
>>> they are,
>>> that does not an FCC certified system make.
>>> Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems.  
>>> Something
>>> like the RB/card/enclosure combination.
>>> Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number  
>>> for
>>> *that system*.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> MT is FCC Certified :)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>>> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org
>>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>> WISPA Vendor Member
>>> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
>>> Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of ralph
>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:57 AM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> Marlon-
>>> You asked, and you probably already know what I will say
>>>
>>> Airaya and others: FCC Certified
>>> Mikrotik- Not so much
>>> It all depends on if you want to be legal or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want 802.11, then look at the Ubiquiti Powerstation. Seems to
>>> work
>>> fine for us, just don't mount it outside.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have to upgrade a couple of backhaul systems and I'm wondering what
>>> others
>>>
>>> are using.
>>>
>>> I've got Airaya gear in place.  I've LOVED it.  That's been some of  
>>> the
>>> most
>>>
>>> reliable gear that I've ever used.
>>>
>>> I also like my Mikrotik hardware so far.  We've put quite a bit of  
>>> it in
>>>
>>> over the last year or so.
>>>
>>> Both of the links I'm going to replace are indoor units with coax to  
>>> the
>>>
>>> outdoor antennas.  So no fancy weather issues to deal with.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to go with Airaya again.  But the MT hardware to do  
>>> the
>>>
>>> same job is about 20% of the cost last time I checked.  I hate to go  
>>> too
>>>
>>> cheap, but I hate to spend too much for no gain.  What are you  
>>> guys
>>> using these days?  Again, the antennas and such are already in place,
>>> all I
>>> need to replace is the indoor ratios.
>>>
>>> Why would you install what you put in?
>>>
>>> laters,
>>> marlon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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/wireles

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Jerry Richardson]

I agree. The (ongoing) debate seems to have many facets.

Regarding 5.2/5.4 if there is no DFS the device is not only non-compliant but 
likely to attract black helicopters.


From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Brian Webster
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 5:18 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

I think the point about certification was specifically asked regarding the 5.4 
version and having been approved for DFS.

Thank You,
Brian Webster


Jerry Richardson wrote:

That's been the ongoing argument.



I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC 
certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.



-Original Message-

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of 
os10ru...@gmail.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices



Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that

transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure

need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio

needs to be certified, not the whole car.



Greg

On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote:





Pretty broad statement: "MT is FCC Certified :)"

Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if

they are,

that does not an FCC certified system make.

Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems.

Something

like the RB/card/enclosure combination.

Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number

for

*that system*.



Thanks



-Original Message-

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]

On

Behalf Of Dennis Burgess

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 PM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices



MT is FCC Certified :)



---

Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer

WISPA Board Member - wispa.org

Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services

WISPA Vendor Member

Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net

LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training

Author of "Learn RouterOS"





-Original Message-

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]

On

Behalf Of ralph

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:57 AM

To: 'WISPA General List'

Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices



Marlon-

You asked, and you probably already know what I will say



Airaya and others: FCC Certified

Mikrotik- Not so much

It all depends on if you want to be legal or not.





If you want 802.11, then look at the Ubiquiti Powerstation. Seems to

work

fine for us, just don't mount it outside.



Ralph



-Original Message-

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]

On

Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 AM

To: WISPA General List

Subject: [WISPA] backhaul choices



Hi All,



I have to upgrade a couple of backhaul systems and I'm wondering what

others



are using.



I've got Airaya gear in place.  I've LOVED it.  That's been some of

the

most



reliable gear that I've ever used.



I also like my Mikrotik hardware so far.  We've put quite a bit of

it in



over the last year or so.



Both of the links I'm going to replace are indoor units with coax to

the



outdoor antennas.  So no fancy weather issues to deal with.



It would be nice to go with Airaya again.  But the MT hardware to do

the



same job is about 20% of the cost last time I checked.  I hate to go

too



cheap, but I hate to spend too much for no gain.  What are you

guys

using these days?  Again, the antennas and such are already in place,

all I

need to replace is the indoor ratios.



Why would you install what you put in?



laters,

marlon













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] Ligo Backhauls

[Jason Hensley]

My experience with the Ligo and Deliberant equipment is fantastic.  The only
time I've done anything with my backhauls (all unlicensed right now) in
particular in the past 6 months is when I've made changes. It works, works
great, and I don't have to worry.  VERY rich feature set in their new stuff.
Love it and wouldn't trade them for anything. 





-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Patrick Shoemaker
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 9:18 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ligo Backhauls

Can I piggyback here?

Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed ones for 
that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any amount of 
downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance out of 
them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com


Jayson Baker wrote:
> So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
> 
> Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
> 
> Jayson
> 
> 
>


> 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] backhaul choices

[Tom DeReggi]

Thank You,Which is a very relevent question for two reasons... 
1) Because, FCC is much more serious about enforcing DFS certification in the 
5.4 band, since it can cause real harm to pre-existing 5.4G incumbands if DFS 
does not work propery, compared to certification issues that are meaningless 
technicalities but really have to negative side effect if the sticker isn't 
there.

2) There was one point where some had stated Atheros chips never could trully 
be certified or MT not trully certified because of the method it uses to do it. 
I remember responses from teh manufacturer that stated otherwise, and it was 
possible to comply. That discussion ended up fading away. It would be 
interesting to learn whether there has been progress in some Atheros Chipsets 
able to pass true DFS2 certiciation lab tests.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Brian Webster 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 8:17 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices


  I think the point about certification was specifically asked regarding the 
5.4 version and having been approved for DFS.



  Thank You,
  Brian Webster




  Jerry Richardson wrote: 
That's been the ongoing argument. 

I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC 
certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of os10ru...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that  
transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure  
need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio  
needs to be certified, not the whole car.

Greg
On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote:

  Pretty broad statement: "MT is FCC Certified :)"
Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if  
they are,
that does not an FCC certified system make.
Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems.  
Something
like the RB/card/enclosure combination.
Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number  
for
*that system*.

Thanks

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

MT is FCC Certified :)

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
Author of "Learn RouterOS"


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Marlon-
You asked, and you probably already know what I will say

Airaya and others: FCC Certified
Mikrotik- Not so much
It all depends on if you want to be legal or not.


If you want 802.11, then look at the Ubiquiti Powerstation. Seems to
work
fine for us, just don't mount it outside.

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Hi All,

I have to upgrade a couple of backhaul systems and I'm wondering what
others

are using.

I've got Airaya gear in place.  I've LOVED it.  That's been some of  
the
most

reliable gear that I've ever used.

I also like my Mikrotik hardware so far.  We've put quite a bit of  
it in

over the last year or so.

Both of the links I'm going to replace are indoor units with coax to  
the

outdoor antennas.  So no fancy weather issues to deal with.

It would be nice to go with Airaya again.  But the MT hardware to do  
the

same job is about 20% of the cost last time I checked.  I hate to go  
too

cheap, but I hate to spend too much for no gain.  What are you  
guys
using these days?  Again, the antennas and such are already in place,
all I
need to replace is the indoor ratios.

Why would you install what you put in?

laters,
marlon






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] Ligo Backhauls

[Josh Luthman]

I know at least two people are using 3.65 and 24ghz LigoWave units.  From
what they say they're great.  Please post your experiences you two!

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

"When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
improbable, must be the truth."
--- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle


On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Patrick Shoemaker <
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com> wrote:

> Can I piggyback here?
>
> Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed ones for
> that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any amount of
> downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance out of
> them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?
>
> Patrick Shoemaker
> Vector Data Systems LLC
> shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
> office: (301) 358-1690 x36
> http://www.vectordatasystems.com
>
>
> Jayson Baker wrote:
> > So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
> >
> > Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
> >
> > Jayson
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 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] Ligo Backhauls

[Patrick Shoemaker]

Can I piggyback here?

Is anyone using the Ligo unlicensed backhauls (or the licensed ones for 
that matter) in a true "carrier-grade" environment, where any amount of 
downtime is unacceptable? Can I expect Motorola grade performance out of 
them, or am I stuck with Trango-style bugs and quirks?

Patrick Shoemaker
Vector Data Systems LLC
shoemak...@vectordatasystems.com
office: (301) 358-1690 x36
http://www.vectordatasystems.com


Jayson Baker wrote:
> So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?
> 
> Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?
> 
> Jayson
> 
> 
> 
> 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] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degradetpZero then drop- repeat.

[Tom DeReggi]

PAul,
I'll try updating the firmware, that makes sense to try.
Upgrading from 3.10 to 3.28, is it likely that I can do that remotely 
without my client configuration getting lost in the process?
(I know how to upgrade packages, I just didn't know if config files are 
consistent through all the V3.X revs)

Tom,
We replaced both XR900s on both sides of link.  So its not a bad radio card. 
We did not replace the RB 411, yet. Its also the first time we used a 411 w/ 
900Mhz card, so we dont have a track record for knowing compatibilty, yet.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Sharples" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed 
degradetpZero then drop- repeat.


> Maybe just bad hardware at Subscriber B? Last week we had an XR-9 ptp link
> in Houston that behaved somewhat similarly, great speed in one direction,
> but next to nothing in the other. Shotgunning the radio & motherboard (an
> Alix) fixed it. Haven't gotten it back yet so don't know which went bad.
>
> Tom S.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:25 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade
> tpZero then drop- repeat.
>
>
>>I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if
>> anyone has any insight.
>>
>> A summary config is
>>
>> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
>> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags
>> VLAN
>> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself
>> does
>> not have any VLAN configured.
>>
>> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on 
>> everything.
>> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces configured.
>> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created
>> for
>> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
>> interfaces
>> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three WDS
>> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under
>> one
>> Bridge.
>>
>> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has
>> two
>> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather.
>> The
>> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave.
>> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith
>> test continually at consistent speed.
>>
>> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS
>> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test.
>>
>> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A
>> PS,
>> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS
>> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith
>> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the
>> following
>> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
>> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then
>> slowly
>> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps,
>> etc,
>> down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and
>> immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and
>> the
>> same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same 
>> thing
>> applies, because it receives also.
>>
>> Noise is low at teh SU, about -67, and -74 at AP.  At first I thought it
>> was
>> noise at the IP, because occastionally SNR gets very low. .But
>> SubscriberA has a lower signal at -84 and does not experience the same
>> problem.  Just for grins, I tried playing around with TRansmit power at
>> the
>> SubscriberB, but that had no positive effect.  As well, as a test, I
>> disabled the second WDS interface to SubscriberA, and no change.
>>
>> To be clear... SubscriberA and SubscriberB each have their own WDS
>> interface
>> configured on WLAN1 of the 433AH AP.
>> I am using embedded MTOS V 3.10 on each.
>>
>> What is causing this problem?  Why is speed received from my SubscriberB
>> incrementally degrading and breaking link?
>>
>> Bridge loops? Is my config valid? RB411 Bug?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Ligo Backhauls

[Jayson Baker]

So what's the real deal with the Ligo licensed backhauls?

Anyone on the list using them?  Performance good?  Problems?

Jayson



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] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects

[Tom DeReggi]

Yes, but it only applies to the infrastructure paid for by grant proceeds. 
And its up to the applicant to define how and at what price they share 
wholesale access to their network.

Strategically... I had a few thoughts on that, that I missed while working 
on an app. We generally use all inclusive flat rate pricing that bundles 
last mile, middle mile, and trasit.
That could work to one's disadvantage in a grant app. It might be better to 
break appart the components, so that the non-discrimination clauses apply 
only to the portion of the network paid for the grant and not the other 
components. For example, you might give fixed wholesale access to the middle 
mile if a middle mile grant, but still charge what you will for Transit or 
Last mile. Or vice versa, if doing a lat mile grant, hav fixed wholesale 
rates for last mile (which must include Internet access) but then charge 
what you want for middle mile only services that were not covered by the 
grant.  My point here is... an ISP is not being forced to comply to the open 
network standard, they are agreeing to have the network paid for by the 
grant to be subject to open network policies.  So I anticipate that there 
could be all kinds of games played by the owner of teh grant network, to 
control how competitive other parties might be trying to use the network on 
a wholesale network.

So there are two concerns here... One is, will you ahve to share your 
network, and Two, how do you get access to someone elses.
To know what option there are to access someone else's network, one must 
read the terms they submit in their application.
But at minimum it must be in compliance with the pre-existing 
non-dscrimination open access rules referenced to by the NOFA

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Scottie Arnett" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Searchable Map of Stimulus projects


> Does the process explicitly say that an awarded company has to open their 
> network to competition? Or is this sort of a vague rule?
>
> Scottie
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: Chuck Bartosch 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:06:11 -0400
>
>>There is no provision in the rules to protest a plan because you don't
>>think it's a good plan.
>>
>>In fact, there's an OMB circular (from July I believe) that explicitly
>>disallows ANY communication until the evaluation process is over about
>>individual applications with the grant reviewers OR the agency over
>>anything except for contesting an application due to your coverage
>>area. I don't think I kept a copy of that circular, but I'm sure you
>>can find it on line.
>>
>>The only exception is if they reach out to you-but they are instructed
>>to ignore and refuse any other input. They are bound by law on this.
>>
>>Just to be clear here, you *could* talk to them in very general terms
>>about how the application process worked. But you cannot talk in any
>>form about an individual application, yours or anyone else's.
>>
>>It might sound like I'm nay-saying here, but I'm just pointing out
>>what the law allows you to do-and it doesn't allow the approach you're
>>suggesting as I understood the circular.
>>
>>Chuck
>>
>>On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>
>>> Its also feasible to protest a plan simply because its a poor plan.
>>> The
>>> NTIA/RUS needs to approve grants for companies that use tax payer
>>> money
>>> optimally wisely and benefit the public, and
>>> adhere to the NOFA rules.  If you think you can do a better plan,
>>> but didn;t
>>> have time to submit it until Round2, why should the ROund1 plan get
>>> approved
>>> if its less good?
>>> And if one doubts the entent of an applicant, we should tell NTIA
>>> what we
>>> think. We are not only competing providers, but we are also the
>>> public that
>>> has to pay the taxes 5to fund these projects.
>>>
>>> I know in my State, there were numerous good applications that
>>> targeted
>>> truely needy areas, and made an effort to avoid other provider
>>> infrastructure. I plan to support those projects.
>>> For example only about 20% in my opinion were bad applications that
>>> would
>>> directly compete with me and other WISPs in their core markets.  I
>>> plan to
>>> protest that 20%.  Anyone that was smart would have avoided pre-
>>> existing
>>> providers or called them a head of time to work benefit for them
>>> into the
>>> proposal to gain their support.  If they didn't do that, they
>>> deserve to
>>> have their applications protested, in my opinion.
>>>
>>> As well, if a grant application covers an area that you entended on
>>> applying
>>> for in Round2, I see no problem in telling NTIA/RUS that, and
>>> advising that
>>> the Round1 funds are oversubscribed, and Round1 funds should go to
>>> projects
>>> without alledged conflict of interests 

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Gino Villarini]

Usually USB and PCMCIA devices has an emmbeded antenna that it was  
certified with the radio as a whole system., independant of the host


You need to make sure the antenna you are using with the radio is FCC  
certified

Sent from my Motorola Startac...


On Sep 16, 2009, at 8:22 AM, "Brian Webster"  wrote:

> I think the point about certification was specifically asked  
> regarding the 5.4 version and having been approved for DFS.
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
>
> Jerry Richardson wrote:
>>
>> That's been the ongoing argument.
>>
>> I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that  
>> is FCC certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- 
>> boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>
>> Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that
>> transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure
>> need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio
>> needs to be certified, not the whole car.
>>
>> Greg
>> On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Pretty broad statement: "MT is FCC Certified :)"
>>> Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if
>>> they are,
>>> that does not an FCC certified system make.
>>> Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems.
>>> Something
>>> like the RB/card/enclosure combination.
>>> Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number
>>> for
>>> *that system*.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> MT is FCC Certified :)
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
>>> WISPA Board Member - wispa.org
>>> Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
>>> WISPA Vendor Member
>>> Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
>>> LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
>>> Author of "Learn RouterOS"
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of ralph
>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:57 AM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> Marlon-
>>> You asked, and you probably already know what I will say
>>>
>>> Airaya and others: FCC Certified
>>> Mikrotik- Not so much
>>> It all depends on if you want to be legal or not.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want 802.11, then look at the Ubiquiti Powerstation. Seems to
>>> work
>>> fine for us, just don't mount it outside.
>>>
>>> Ralph
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>> On
>>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
>>> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] backhaul choices
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have to upgrade a couple of backhaul systems and I'm wondering  
>>> what
>>> others
>>>
>>> are using.
>>>
>>> I've got Airaya gear in place.  I've LOVED it.  That's been some of
>>> the
>>> most
>>>
>>> reliable gear that I've ever used.
>>>
>>> I also like my Mikrotik hardware so far.  We've put quite a bit of
>>> it in
>>>
>>> over the last year or so.
>>>
>>> Both of the links I'm going to replace are indoor units with coax to
>>> the
>>>
>>> outdoor antennas.  So no fancy weather issues to deal with.
>>>
>>> It would be nice to go with Airaya again.  But the MT hardware to do
>>> the
>>>
>>> same job is about 20% of the cost last time I checked.  I hate to go
>>> too
>>>
>>> cheap, but I hate to spend too much for no gain.  What are you
>>> guys
>>> using these days?  Again, the antennas and such are already in  
>>> place,
>>> all I
>>> need to replace is the indoor ratios.
>>>
>>> Why would you install what you put in?
>>>
>>> laters,
>>> marlon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- 
>>> --- 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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

Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

[Brian Webster]

Title: Thank You,




I think the point about certification was
specifically asked regarding the 5.4 version and having been approved
for DFS.













Thank
You,
Brian Webster





Jerry Richardson wrote:

  That's been the ongoing argument. 

I use the analogy of a PCMCIA or USB card. that's the device that is FCC certified - the computer (routerboard) just runs it.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of os10ru...@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Excuse my ignorance but since the card is the only thing that  
transmits why does the board and especially why does the enclosure  
need to be certified? If one puts a two way radio in a car the radio  
needs to be certified, not the whole car.

Greg
On Sep 14, 2009, at 8:30 PM, ralph wrote:

  
  
Pretty broad statement: "MT is FCC Certified :)"
Yes, I believe the wireless cards themselves might be- but even if  
they are,
that does not an FCC certified system make.
Please give me some FCC registration numbers of certified systems.  
Something
like the RB/card/enclosure combination.
Maybe someone built a system and had it tested and received a number  
for
*that system*.

Thanks

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

MT is FCC Certified :)

---
Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
WISPA Board Member - wispa.org
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services
WISPA Vendor Member
Office: 314-735-0270 Website: http://www.linktechs.net
LIVE On-Line Mikrotik Training
Author of "Learn RouterOS"


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On
Behalf Of ralph
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:57 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Marlon-
You asked, and you probably already know what I will say

Airaya and others: FCC Certified
Mikrotik- Not so much
It all depends on if you want to be legal or not.


If you want 802.11, then look at the Ubiquiti Powerstation. Seems to
work
fine for us, just don't mount it outside.

Ralph

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] backhaul choices

Hi All,

I have to upgrade a couple of backhaul systems and I'm wondering what
others

are using.

I've got Airaya gear in place.  I've LOVED it.  That's been some of  
the
most

reliable gear that I've ever used.

I also like my Mikrotik hardware so far.  We've put quite a bit of  
it in

over the last year or so.

Both of the links I'm going to replace are indoor units with coax to  
the

outdoor antennas.  So no fancy weather issues to deal with.

It would be nice to go with Airaya again.  But the MT hardware to do  
the

same job is about 20% of the cost last time I checked.  I hate to go  
too

cheap, but I hate to spend too much for no gain.  What are you  
guys
using these days?  Again, the antennas and such are already in place,
all I
need to replace is the indoor ratios.

Why would you install what you put in?

laters,
marlon






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

A

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade tpZero then drop- repeat.

[can...@believewireless.net]

Try upgrading the subscriber with problems to V3.28 and using the
wireless test package.  Many of the odd issues we've had with MT and
wireless are version related.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Tom Sharples wrote:
> Maybe just bad hardware at Subscriber B? Last week we had an XR-9 ptp link
> in Houston that behaved somewhat similarly, great speed in one direction,
> but next to nothing in the other. Shotgunning the radio & motherboard (an
> Alix) fixed it. Haven't gotten it back yet so don't know which went bad.
>
> Tom S.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:25 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Mikrotik Problem - 900Mhz-WDS-incremental speed degrade
> tpZero then drop- repeat.
>
>
>>I have a problem with Mikrotik I have not been able to solve. Wondering if
>> anyone has any insight.
>>
>> A summary config is
>>
>> I have a 433AH setup as AP with 1 XR900 and 1 R5H (5.8Ghz). The Cat5
>> Ethernet port goes to a SMC VLAN switch, where the SMC tags and untags
>> VLAN
>> ID, and continues to the Backhaul Radio. My point here is the MT itself
>> does
>> not have any VLAN configured.
>>
>> I need everything to act as a True Bridge, so I'm using WDS on everything.
>> Both mPCI cards are set up as "AP" and then WDS interfaces configured.
>> The R5H sector has one subscriber, so there is one WDS interface created
>> for
>> that.  The XR900 has two subscriber points.  So there are two WDS
>> interfaces
>> set up for the XR900 sector, one for each subscriber.  So all three WDS
>> interaces and the Ethernet (to backhaul) are all bridged togeather under
>> one
>> Bridge.
>>
>> SubscriberA has a 433AH also, and actually is a repeater site. So it has
>> two
>> mPCI each configured for WDS, and then the WDS ports bridged togeather.
>> The
>> primary mPCI that connects to the above first AP, is set for WDS Slave.
>> This subscriberA (repeater radio) works normally. I can run MT bandwdith
>> test continually at consistent speed.
>>
>> As well, the subscriber for the R5H sector above also is set up for WDS
>> Salve, and works properly, and tests consistently with Bandwdith test.
>>
>> SubscriberB for 900Mhz sector is the problem. It is a RB411 w/ a 24V-1A
>> PS,
>> w/ XR900. Originally it was set for WDS Slave also. It is now set for WDS
>> Station, and performs the same as if WDS Slave. When running MT Bandwdith
>> test both UDP or TCP, Sitting at the 433AH AP's winbox, I get the
>> following
>> results TXing it works perfectly and consistently.
>> But if doing a receive test It starts out at about 800 kbps, then
>> slowly
>> reduces speed incrementally, down to 500 kbps, to 300kbps, to 100kbps,
>> etc,
>> down to Zero. When it reaches Zero mbps, the radio link disconnects, and
>> immediately restarts itself. Speed starts back up at 800 kbps or so, and
>> the
>> same thing repeats. If doing Bi-directional tests of course the same thing
>> applies, because it receives also.
>>
>> Noise is low at teh SU, about -67, and -74 at AP.  At first I thought it
>> was
>> noise at the IP, because occastionally SNR gets very low. .But
>> SubscriberA has a lower signal at -84 and does not experience the same
>> problem.  Just for grins, I tried playing around with TRansmit power at
>> the
>> SubscriberB, but that had no positive effect.  As well, as a test, I
>> disabled the second WDS interface to SubscriberA, and no change.
>>
>> To be clear... SubscriberA and SubscriberB each have their own WDS
>> interface
>> configured on WLAN1 of the 433AH AP.
>> I am using embedded MTOS V 3.10 on each.
>>
>> What is causing this problem?  Why is speed received from my SubscriberB
>> incrementally degrading and breaking link?
>>
>> Bridge loops? Is my config valid? RB411 Bug?
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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