Re: [WISPA] Looking for some...

[Caleb Knauer via Wireless]

DoubleRadius has 3pcs or so in stock in NC according to the system.
Shipping may be a killer though.  Reach out to your rep if you have
one or call the main number and someone can get you set up.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:18 PM Blair Davis via Wireless
 wrote:
>
> SunMax Solar Panels...
>
> SM-SP-260W-DC-US
>
> New or used...
>
> Within 500-600 miles of Grand Rapids.
>
> Need 6+
>
> --
> West Michigan Wireless ISP
> Allegan, Michigan  49010
> 269-686-8648
>
> A Division of:
> Camp Communication Services, INC
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum

[Caleb Knauer]

Agreed that 6Ghz is far from "legacy".  We sell and install a ton of it for
rural and semi-rural ISP's, broadcast industry, and other customers.  11Ghz
can't do the distance for a lot of links.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:00 AM,  wrote:

>
>
>  It's not that I don't want the band used by my competitors, I just want
> it to remain a useful spectrum for what its best at: long range PtP
> communications. Our competitors have access to the band the same way we do
> and that's a good thing.
>
>
>
>  We absolutely need the part 101 bands to guarantee our towers have enough
> future capacity where the fiber doesn't run. And 6 Ghz is the only band
> with the reach for many of our locations. There's just no replacement for
> long links. *It's not "legacy" its vital.*
>
>
>
>   And yes we would gladly forgo unlicensed use of the band if it meant 6
> Ghz stayed useful as PtP spectrum, for everyone. We're open to lightly
> licensing or secondary use licensing options but only if the band remains
> PtP oriented.
>
>
>
>
>
> Garrett Shankle
>
> Senior Field Technician
>
> Virginia Broadband LLC.
>
> (540)-829-1700 <(540)%20829-1700>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Mike Hammett" 
> Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 8:43am
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz
> Part 101 spectrum
>
> There are plenty of paths around here where you can't get any 6 GHz
> licenses in any meaningful capacity.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Mark Radabaugh" 
> *To: *"WISPA General List" 
> *Sent: *Monday, June 5, 2017 6:04:18 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in
> 6Ghz Part 101 spectrum
>
> The proposals protect Part 101 links using a database system.
> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of
> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using it.
> Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP use how do
> you propose to serve the demands of your customers without obtaining
> additional spectrum?
> You said “all licensed PTP links would be at risk”.   I don’t believe that
> is the case here - we are only discussing 6Ghz which is largely used (in
> our industry) for long range legacy PTP links.   It’s certainly important
> where it’s used at Mike Meluskey pointed out, but looking at the numbers
> the band shows pretty light usage.
> How much of the 6Ghz spectrum are you currently using for PTP links?
> Mark
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:45 PM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote:
>   I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band
> sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far outweighs
> any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15.
>
>
>   Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and all
> installations should require registration and professional installation. As
> for higher power and larger channels: I do think the band could use some
> updates. But not at the expense of the current links.
>
>
>  We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as
> certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" SSID's
> in 6ghz as well.
>
>
>  While I don't think our company alone counts as significant opposition,
> you can count us as "significantly opposed".
>
>
>
>
> Garrett Shankle
> Senior Field Technician
> Virginia Broadband LLC.
> (540)-829-1700 <(540)%20829-1700>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mike.l...@gmail.com
> Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 6Ghz
> Part 101 spectrum
>
> +1000
>
> > On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> >> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the
> >> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant
> >> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.
> >
> >
> > I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any
> > indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing
> > substantial interference by idiots and would be 

Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?

[Caleb Knauer]

Man we went through all those guys as they rose and fell in the early
years.  We had a 2x2Mbps SDSL line in our apt in college and it turned
into homework central for all our friends that needed to push heavy
data back to campus computing systems but didn't want to hang out in
the labs all night.  I also remember what a total trainwreck it was
getting circuits provisioned/moved for our integration customers as
BellSouth would drag their feet so bad.  That mess is what pushed me
into wireless to start with.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Robert nos...@avantwireless.com wrote:
 Ah the days of Covad, Northpoint, etc..   Racing to get high speed
 internet to needy customers on VC dollars not knowing that behind their
 backs a quick regulation change would make all that easy pickings for
 the incumbents...   Those who do not learn from history are doomed to
 repeat it..  Fred, please gaze into your magic ball of the past and give
 us a clue to our future?  Are our collective necks starting to hover
 over the ax block?

 On 11/19/2014 08:32 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
 Chuckle :)

 You all don't know who Fred is :)

 He has a weee bit of experience in these matters. :)

 I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a  dejavu !!!

 What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, 
 is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline 
 side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II 
 regulations.It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm)  to see the 
 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a 
 way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time 
 to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them

 And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... 
 (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world).

 :)


 Faisal Imtiaz
 Snappy Internet  Telecom
 7266 SW 48 Street
 Miami, FL 33155
 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

 - Original Message -
 From: Eric Tykwinski eric-l...@truenet.com
 To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?

 Fred,

 It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem.
 I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the 
 problem
 really is.
 Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public 
 activist
 side,
 but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see
 that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run.

 Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally
 stick, well that’s up in the air.

 Sincerely,

 Eric Tykwinski
 TrueNet, Inc.
 P: 610-429-8300
 F: 610-429-3222

 On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net
 wrote:

 Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment!

 Kevin

 - Original Message -
 From: Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net
 To: wireless@wispa.org
 Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?


 On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote:
 I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous.

 https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9

 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support
 and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying
 to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems
 carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might
 be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for
 your answer and have a fantastic day!


 You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer.

 Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate
 nouns.  Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse
 -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so
 different people use it to have different referents.

 I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given
 that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last
 month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC.  And I've
 been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told
 the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they
 could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language
 convention.  El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high
 speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of
 the facility, including Internet service delivered over it.  (If you
 don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a
 program.)  But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications
 component, and La Broadband is the 

Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?

[Caleb Knauer]

This is very informative, thanks Fred.

I guess the part that I'm still confused about is the whole content
neutrality/fastlane conversation, the only part general consumers care
about as the political base pushing for these changes has made it into
the single marketing pitch.  I mean sure, at first glance it seems
like a good idea to prevent telco/cable companies from parsing up the
internet into psuedo-channels (worst case).  But of course it's not
that simple.  What part of the proposed NN rules dictates how content
is managed to make it neutral?

For delivery/reporting/transport regulations, seems to me that if the
feds want us to play by big boy rules then they need to give us big
boy tools (spectrum).  And real spectrum, not tiny neutered slices.
Licensed (real, not this 3.65 nonsense), high power, wide bands (for
mfg efficiency).

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Fred Goldstein f...@interisle.net wrote:
 On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote:
 I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous.

 https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9

 I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support
 and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying
 to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems
 carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might
 be on the hate it side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for
 your answer and have a fantastic day!


 You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer.

 Broadband is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate
 nouns.  Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse
 -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so
 different people use it to have different referents.

 I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given
 that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last
 month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC.  And I've
 been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told
 the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they
 could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language
 convention.  El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high
 speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of
 the facility, including Internet service delivered over it.  (If you
 don't know Spanish, el radio is a device and la radio is a
 program.)  But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications
 component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it.

 The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law
 (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common
 carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply
 sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive
 access to their formerly common-carrier facilities.  So typical
 consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company
 and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL).

 The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They
 recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco
 duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the
 ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it).  But not
 recognizing the difference between a network (what carries IP) and an
 internetwork (the Internet itself, content slung across many
 networks), they demanded network neutrality referring to the ISP
 function itself.  And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by
 proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the
 actual telecom provided by the monopolists.

 So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications
 component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using
 rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole
 attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies).  But those
 who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use
 non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all
 WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the
 Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on
 up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by
 facility owners).

 So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens
 monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates
 the Internet or WISPs).  Got it?  That's why the question is wrong.

 --
   Fred R. Goldstein  k1iofred at interisle.net
   Interisle Consulting Group
   +1 617 795 2701

 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list

Re: [WISPA] Mimosa Calcs and Noise?

[Caleb Knauer]

Drop the antenna gain until you get to your estimated SNR ;-)

There's an interference loss field which drops your SNR by the amt of
whatever you put in there.  An ambient noise floor field may be easier
to comprehend.

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Gino Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com wrote:
 Where do adjust the noise figure for real capacity measurements?  Noise
 loss? Whats that?



 Gino A. Villarini
 President
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 www.aeronetpr.com
 @aeronetpr



 ___
 Wireless mailing list
 Wireless@wispa.org
 http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] It's not much but I'd like to help

[Caleb Knauer]

Hey guys,
 
I'm short on gear, but I'd like to help somebody down there in the AL mess.  I 
have a Coleman stove, a pile of propane, and can pick up whatever 
food/water/gas and maybe some kids toys to help them out.  And can bring some 
booze and smokes to help the adults out too :)  If someone has direct access to 
someone in need and can give me an address and contact info, I'll load up the 
car and head down from ATL tomorrow.  It's not much, but if I can help a family 
or two then I'm more than willing to head that way.  My cell is 404-520-1361.  
 
Thanks,
Caleb 
winmail.dat


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] deliberant/ligowave

[Caleb Knauer]

Hey Marlon, 

I wanted to reply to this to you and on the lists to answer your
questions and make some things clearer, as there are some points of
confusion that can definitely be cleared up (now and going forward) on
our part.  

Deliberant and Ligowave are sister companies.  Originally our new CPE
offerings were going to be launched on the Ligowave side of the house,
but we decided to move all of the standards (802.11) stuff to Deliberant
and focus Ligowave on the proprietary (PTP, PTMP, Mesh) solutions.  The
first round of gear shipped with the Ligowave FCC stickers as the
updated Deliberant ones were not available yet, hence the different
stickers.  Everything now has Deliberant stickers on them.  

VPOL is with the cat5 connector pointing down, you are correct.  HPOL is
with the cat5 connector to the side (rotated 90*).  Confusing, yes, and
the stickers should be here soon.  

We do need to add the instructions for the cat5 connector and the
support number to the quick start guide.  The first one is always the
trickiest!  

The support number is the main number at 800-742-9865, and it is open
9-5 Eastern.  My direct extension is in my signature. 

We are completely overhauling the GUI with a Flex backend that is much
faster.  We have a beta available, so contact me offlist if you are
interested.  

RSSI value listed on the Status page is basically the difference between
received signal and the noise floor.  So if you have an RSSI value of
40, there is 40dB between the noise floor and what you are receiving.
We have plans to add the actual received level (in dB) to the Status
page soon, and until then if you do a Site Survey on the Tools page you
can see the levels there as well.  

Bridge mode should work, but I have some ideas.  Shoot me your IP info
offlist (radio, gateway, rest of the local network segment, etc) and we
can troubleshoot.  

When you enable Router mode, a Firewall tab should appear that will
allow you to port forward.  

Any other questions, please feel free to ping me offlist or give me a
ring at my number and extension in my signature.  We appreciate the
feedback and look forward to your (and everyone else's) assistance in
improving our products.  

Thanks,
Caleb 

===
Caleb Knauer
Deliberant LLC

800.742.9865 x 206
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deliberant.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] deliberant/ligowave

Hi All,

I just installed my first radio from these guys.  (Anyone know if it's
the 
same company)  I'm tossing out my very first thoughts as I'm still
at 
the customer's location, this is as raw as it'll get.

First thing I noticed was a box that said Deliberant and a radio that
said 
LigoWave.  Probably the same company but it would be nice if the
stickers 
matched.

Next, no polarity marking of any kind on it.  My guess of vertical being
all 
stickers and connectors down seems to be correct.

Nothing tells you how to put the outdoor connector together.  I've done
them 
before so I knew which way to put that tapered gasket in, but my first
time 
I'm not sure I'd have gotten it right.

No tech support phone number in the manual.  If it's there I couldn't
find 
it.

The interface is slow.  Definitely God's gift to the hourly wage guy.

I'm trying this unit at a location that runs VPN and VoIP out of a home 
office.  Ever since I installed an MT AP her Tranzeo CPQ unit does the 
disconnect thing and drops her calls and connections.  Speeds are good, 
pings are good etc.  But stuff just don't work.  A Ubiquity at this
location 
worked just fine till it decided it wasn't going to listen to the AP
anymore 
(-90 or worse rssi when the replacement Tranzeo CPE unit had -65ish).

This unit has a 40rssi.  Whatever THAT means.  I sure hate those random 
signal level meters.  Give me the dB so that I can do a better job of 
troubleshooting.

Never did get this unit to pass data in bridge mode.  It would connect
but I 
couldn't get more than 1 ping at a time to go.  Web pages would start
but 
not load.  In router mode it works fine.

Router mode has no port forwarding options.  Not an issue this time, but

without a working bridge mode I'll have to be careful where they get
used.

The hardware was easy to set up.  No instructions offered, but none
needed 
(other than the polarity sticker that needs to be there).

Speeds are good.  Seeing 7 to 9 megs down and up.  Just like the
original 
Tranzeo CPQ radio gives.

Now to see if it'll stay connected and give stable service to the
customer.

laters,
marlon





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http