Re: [WISPA] AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We just finished installing 3 Powerstation 5's and 2 Nanostation 5's on a 
160 foot AM tower using an AC power choke & fiber to the bottom.  We put the 
POE's and stuff at the top of the tower.

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] AM radio tower


> http://www.lbagroup.com/hottowerart.php
>
> They make a power isolation coil.  Your best bet would be to use one of
> those to pass power up the tower and use fiber to transmit data.
>
> I worked with them on an AM tower in the past.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Michael Baird" 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:25 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: [WISPA] AM radio tower
>
>> *I've recently been approached about expanding our service to an AM
>> tower. We would be using 2.4 gear, what kind of problems would I need to
>> watch out for when deploying on an AM tower. They said it was
>> broadcasting at 1KW and the entire tower is hot. It is in a really good
>> area, is a nice tower and the price is minimal, but I want to avoid as
>> many service problems as possible by knowing what I'm getting into
>> beforehand.
>>
>> 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] New UBNT M line, 802.11n without TDMA?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Does anyone know if the TDMA slicing is configurable?  Like 50/50 up/down, 
or prioritized Voice/Video?

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] New UBNT M line, 802.11n without TDMA?


> Except airMAX goes a step further by using some hardware function that is 
> only available in the 11n chipsets.
> The TDMA is a mix of software and hardware.
>
> /Eje
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Josh Luthman 
>
> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:33:59
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] New UBNT M line, 802.11n without TDMA?
>
>
> Airmax to Ubnt is Nstreme to Mikrotik from what I gather.  To those who 
> know
> Mikrotik that one sentence covers it all.
>
> 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, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Michael Baird  wrote:
>
>> When you enable airmax on the AP, only airmax capable stations will see
>> it and can connect to it.
>> Airmax capable clients will be able to connect to non-airmax enabled
>> AP's, they recognize airmax/non-airmax alike.
>> You can not mix and match, you can't run legacy gear to a Airmax enabled
>> AP, won't work.
>> Which isn't a good thing, but it's Ubiquities statement on the subject,
>> they say their older hardware can't handle airmax/tdma.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Baird
>> > But you cannot mix and match correct?
>> > ryan
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Michael Baird  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Airmax is enabled when a Ubiquity product is in AP mode, it's a tick
>> >> box. Airmax capable clients will autodetect whether the AP is airmax
>> >> enabled or not.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Michael Baird
>> >>
>> >>> Correct.
>> >>> ryan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Michael Baird 
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>  Ryan,
>> 
>>  That's not correct. Your second example will not accept a 802.11G/N
>>  client. When airmax is enabled, no normal 802.11 client will even 
>>  see
>>  the AP.
>>  You must disable airmax on the AP in order to handle normal clients,
>> you
>>  can't have some CPE's running in Airmax and some not running in
>> Airmax.
>> 
>>  Regards
>>  Michael Baird
>> 
>> 
>> > Be aware though, you cannot mix and match at the same time.For
>> example:
>> >
>> > 1 Airmax AP and 10 Airmax enabled CPE = Airmax network.
>> > 1 Airmax AP, 9 Airmax enabled CPE and 1 802.11G/N = 802.11G/N
>> network.
>> >
>> > ryan
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Michael Baird 
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Not sure if this is clear, but with airmax enabled Ubiquity is
>> >> proprietary, if you disable airmax it will work with other n/g
>> >>
>> >> clients,
>> >>
>> >> I don't think b is supported at this time. The firmware is rather
>> >>
>> >> young
>> >>
>> >> at this time as well, I'd wait a few releases before using these 
>> >> in
>> >> production.
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >> Michael Baird
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Yes by default it act as a regular 11n unit to get TDMA function
>> you
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> would enable airMAX function on the units. Kind of like with
>> MikroTik
>> >>
>> >>
>>  you
>> 
>> 
>> >> would enable Nstrem to get that functionality. As far as I know
>> these
>> >>
>> >>
>>  two
>> 
>> 
>> >> systems are not compatible.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> 11n is backwards compatible with a/b/g
>> >>> So yes your scenario about upgrade path works just fine.
>> >>>
>> >>> /Eje
>> >>> --Original Message--
>> >>> From: os10ru...@gmail.com
>> >>> Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org
>> >>> To: WISPA General List
>> >>> ReplyTo: WISPA General List
>> >>> Subject: [WISPA] New UBNT M line, 802.11n without TDMA?
>> >>> Sent: Aug 26, 2009 06:40
>> >>>
>> >>> Can the new UBNT M line gear be used as an 802.11n access point
>> >>> without the TDMA? I'm assuming the TDMA protocol is proprietary 
>> >>> and
>> >>> that when using the TDMA protocol normal 802.11a/b/g gear doesn't
>> >>> work. I'm also assuming the TDMA can be turned off which I 
>> >>> realize
>> >>> might not be the case.
>> >>>
>> >>> For example, could someone who's currently running an 802.11g AP
>> >>> replace the AP with the new M gear but with the TDMA turned off
>> (for
>> >>> now), at their leisure change out  802.11g CPEs replacing them 
>> >>> with
>> >>> the M enabled ones (also with the TDMA turned off for now), and
>> when
>> >>> all the CPEs have been upgraded and are M compl

[WISPA] Engenius EAP-3660

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Has anyone used the Engenius EAP-3660 (600mW / 4dbi Smoke Detector style AP) in 
a hotel/motel environment?  Any word on coverage, etc?  Will they run open-mesh?

Thanks



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] NCIC, FIPS, and wireless

[Doug Ratcliffe]

It's been several years, but a 128 bit encrypted Citrix over 128 bit PPTP 
VPN passed FCIC/NCIC audits several years ago, as well as Web based FCIC SSL 
over 128 bit PPTP XP DUN to Mikrotik VPN is still passing audits via Sprint 
Wireless (the regular civilian version, not the direct to T1 version that 
they also sell for large departments).

- Original Message - 
From: "D. Ryan Spott" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NCIC, FIPS, and wireless


>I provide some service to the local PD. You provide transport, and 
>transport only. The PD and their IT guys should do all of the encryption... 
>You REALLY don't want to be responsible for the security of their data.
>
> Does the telco provide encryption? No way.. Easy and cheap to do, but the 
> risk!
>
> If you are the contracted IT guy then do it as a separate part of the 
> contract.. Then have a third party certify your system. The higher up LEO 
> will probably do this for you. (sheriff or state patrol)
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> ryan
>
> ryan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Auer 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:51 AM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] NCIC, FIPS, and wireless
>
> In our area the police use EVDO broadband cards over the open internet.
> Access to their network is over a IPSEC VPN.
> Not sure if that is technically in compliance or not but they have
> been running like that for over a year.
>
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Rogelio wrote:
>> I'm planning out a wireless network, and the police want a piece of the
>> action.
>>
>> I'm also guessing that FIPS compliancy addresses NCIC concerns, and I
>> was wondering if anyone could comment on that being sufficient.
>>
>> I'm also wondering if a dual form of authentication adequately addresses
>> the security issues. From what I can tell, if the police do any of the
>> following things (listed in the URL below), then they have to follow NCIC
>>
>> http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ncic.htm
>>
>> A contact of mine who works for the police tells me the following
>> interesting things about NCIC, which I'd love feedback on...
>>
>> --if you use PtP links (e.g. T1 lines) between sites, requirements are
>> very lax
>> --if you don't use PtP links, then you'll likely need two form
>> authentication (not necessarily two on separate bands)
>> --everyone assumes that a police network *will* be in compliance
>> --people often build police networks with compliance, as someone will
>> inevitably put secure stuff on top of it later
>> --the penalty for not being compliant is getting shut down until
>> everything is reviewed
>> --only police departments can ask the DOJ for clarification on what is
>> and isn't compliant (vendors can't ask directly)
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Anyone have NS2 in stock?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Half array (a full array would be 6 of each, NS2 and NS5).  I'm only 
covering 180 degrees because the other direction is a lot of trees and the 
business & condo district is on the side that's covered.  Each NS2/NS5 is 
approx. 60 degrees (55 or so?) so it takes 3 to cover 180 degrees.

- Original Message - 
From: 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have NS2 in stock?


> Doug,
>
> I don't understand the term "half array" (yes, I googled it), also
> why would you use three of each to cover only 180 degrees?
>
> Greg
> On Jun 27, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>
>> We're using a half array (3 NS2, 3 NS5's) to do 180 degree coverage
>> of an
>> area, we get solid links 4 miles away.  One link at 2.5 miles to a
>> Mikrotik
>> board gets a -58 signal level.  We use 10mhz channels in 5ghz and
>> 20mhz in
>> 2ghz.  We don't have enough clients on it yet to really give a good
>> indication of interference, but it works.  We built our own Canopy-
>> style
>> cluster mount out of steel that gives each unit about 2.5 feet of
>> horizontal
>> separation.
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 10:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have NS2 in stock?
>>
>>
>>> I would also be interested to know if anyone has deployed NS2's in a
>>> sectorized AP configuration and what results were seen. Could one use
>>> full power (channels 1,6,11) with little horizontal separation and no
>>> vertical separation? Would vertical separation be mandatory?
>>>
>>> Greg
>>> On Jun 27, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Robert West wrote:
>>>
>>>> Had to add that the nanostation2 has adaptive polarization, will
>>>> operate in
>>>> both vertical and horizontal and will switch back and forth
>>>> depending on the
>>>> signal.  Unless of course you use an external antenna which can plug
>>>> into
>>>> the SMA connector it has just for that purpose.  Out of all the
>>>> things cheap
>>>> in this business, that NS2 is a winner.
>>>>
>>>> A question though, has anyone used the NS2 setup as sector for a
>>>> mini-pop?
>>>> We have a bit of a hole we can go down into and thought about
>>>> setting up
>>>> some NS2's in a sector configuration.  Haven't looked at it close at
>>>> all
>>>> though, dunno about how they would mess with each other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of Jon Auer
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:50 PM
>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have NS2 in stock?
>>>>
>>>> We have 12 deployed as outdoor Hotspot APs and they have been
>>>> flawless
>>>> for over a year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/26/09, Charles Wyble  wrote:
>>>>> I'm hearing to avoid the ns2 and go with the ps2/5. Less issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do folks say?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been putting some decent load in both a hotspot and point to
>>>>> point
>>>>> configuration configuration. It's worked flawlessly so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm planning to do some pretty serious stress testing on it and see
>>>>> if I
>>>>> can break it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
>>>>>> Please contact offlist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/

Re: [WISPA] Anyone have NS2 in stock?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We're using a half array (3 NS2, 3 NS5's) to do 180 degree coverage of an 
area, we get solid links 4 miles away.  One link at 2.5 miles to a Mikrotik 
board gets a -58 signal level.  We use 10mhz channels in 5ghz and 20mhz in 
2ghz.  We don't have enough clients on it yet to really give a good 
indication of interference, but it works.  We built our own Canopy-style 
cluster mount out of steel that gives each unit about 2.5 feet of horizontal 
separation.


- Original Message - 
From: 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have NS2 in stock?


>I would also be interested to know if anyone has deployed NS2's in a
> sectorized AP configuration and what results were seen. Could one use
> full power (channels 1,6,11) with little horizontal separation and no
> vertical separation? Would vertical separation be mandatory?
>
> Greg
> On Jun 27, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Robert West wrote:
>
>> Had to add that the nanostation2 has adaptive polarization, will
>> operate in
>> both vertical and horizontal and will switch back and forth
>> depending on the
>> signal.  Unless of course you use an external antenna which can plug
>> into
>> the SMA connector it has just for that purpose.  Out of all the
>> things cheap
>> in this business, that NS2 is a winner.
>>
>> A question though, has anyone used the NS2 setup as sector for a
>> mini-pop?
>> We have a bit of a hole we can go down into and thought about
>> setting up
>> some NS2's in a sector configuration.  Haven't looked at it close at
>> all
>> though, dunno about how they would mess with each other.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
>> On
>> Behalf Of Jon Auer
>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 10:50 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone have NS2 in stock?
>>
>> We have 12 deployed as outdoor Hotspot APs and they have been flawless
>> for over a year.
>>
>>
>> On 6/26/09, Charles Wyble  wrote:
>>> I'm hearing to avoid the ns2 and go with the ps2/5. Less issues.
>>>
>>> What do folks say?
>>>
>>> I've been putting some decent load in both a hotspot and point to
>>> point
>>> configuration configuration. It's worked flawlessly so far.
>>>
>>> I'm planning to do some pretty serious stress testing on it and see
>>> if I
>>> can break it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
 Please contact offlist.

 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/

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

Re: [WISPA] Clearwire being sued for poor service, ETFs

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Clearwire would list coverage available and even if you called to cancel the 
day after you took your modem home for poor service, they would send out a 
tech, and even stick your modem in a plastic bag, hanging outside your 
window 100 feet across your house just to say "it works" and you wouldn't be 
allowed to terminate.  If you complained about the wire, they would sell you 
HomePlug powerline adapters, or sell you a wireless router.  It was worse 
than cancelling AOL, even worse than the cell phone companies.

- Original Message - 
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Clearwire being sued for poor service, ETFs


> Clearwire isn't always on?
>
> I bet these are customers that outside of the coverage zone...
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> --- Henry Spencer
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM, David E. Smith  wrote:
>
>> http://www.cellular-news.com/story/37150.php
>>
>> Customers in four states are filing suit against Clearwire for
>> false-advertising, and to get out of paying ETFs. They advertised their
>> service as an always-on service, comparable to DSL or cable modem;
>> consumers say the service is hit-or-miss, often was comparable to
>> dial-up, and that since Clearwire didn't hold up their end of the deal,
>> subscribers shouldn't have to pay early termination fees.
>>
>> David Smith
>> MVN.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Service to Titusville, FL 32780

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I don't know if Brevard Wireless is on this list, but they're all over that 
county.  brevardwireless.com
  - Original Message - 
  From: Blair Davis 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Service to Titusville, FL 32780


  If you find someone, please let me know.  I have a standing request for 
service in that area.

  Dylan Bouterse wrote: 
Is there anybody on list that can service the above city/zip? I can
provide a more specific address off list.

Dylan



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Using PPPoE & DHCP simultaneously?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I know it's considered bad practice to do this, but I'm transitioning my 
existing wireless network from DHCP/Static to PPPoE, and I was wondering if 
there was a technical reason PPPoE & DHCP can't co-exist on the same network.  

Thanks



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] POE up AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

True.  The height is 160 feet.  I was thinking about using outside plant 
heavy duty shielded 25-pair Cat5e rated 50-pin telco cables, rather than 14 
individual cat-5 wires, going into 6-cable cat5e octopus cables at the top 
and bottom for easier cable management.

- Original Message - 
From: "Dustin Jurman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower


> Brian,
>
>
>
> They knew way before.   How high are you going up?
>
>
>
> Dustin
>
>
>
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Rohrbacher
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:46 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>
> So now that the entire internet now has figured out which tower I'm 
> talking
> about (including local competition that may not have known where my tower
> broadcasts were located)...
>
> All the more reason to use the members list..
>
>
>
> What kind of ethernet/POE shielding would allow
> me to run my switches/power packs/etc at the bottom of this tower based on
> 1kW?
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Leon Zetekoff"  <mailto:wa4...@arrl.net> 
> To: "WISPA General List"  <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> 
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>
>
>
>
> WMFJ is 1 kw as I thought. Matter of fact I might have been at that
> station evaluating it for a friends family in the 90s. It was one
> station in Daytona.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?call=wmfj
> <http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?call=wmfj&x=15&y=6&sr=Y&s=C>
> &x=15&y=6&sr=Y&s=C
>
> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>
>
> I am guessing WMFJ
>
> - Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE"
> <mailto:wa4...@backwoodswireless.net> 
> To: "WISPA General List"  <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> 
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>
>
>
>
> * Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 1/3/2009 7:33 PM:
>
>
> The tower is a 4-leg self supporting tower, it was built a long time
> ago,
> built from what I've heard in the mid 1900's...  The antennas for
> the tower
> are isolated from the tower, it appears that there are 3 vertical
> antennas,
> attached with copper tubing from the transmitter to each of the
> antennas
> (which are on isolated standoffs, top to bottom.  There is some kind of
> matching transformer in the building under the tower.  The tower is
> 10kW,
> 1450 AM (good guess on the frequency!)..
>
>
>
> I think 1450 is a CLASS IV (or what was a CLASS IV) freq and should be
> 1kW. What's the callsign and location?
>
> leon
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] POE up AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

And after some research its their FM station which I was confused with, in 
another city at 10kW.

- Original Message - 
From: "Leon Zetekoff" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower


> WMFJ is 1 kw as I thought. Matter of fact I might have been at that
> station evaluating it for a friends family in the 90s. It was one
> station in Daytona.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?call=wmfj&x=15&y=6&sr=Y&s=C
>
> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>> I am guessing WMFJ
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE"
>> 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>>
>>
>>> * Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 1/3/2009 7:33 PM:
>>>> The tower is a 4-leg self supporting tower, it was built a long time
>>>> ago,
>>>> built from what I've heard in the mid 1900's...  The antennas for
>>>> the tower
>>>> are isolated from the tower, it appears that there are 3 vertical
>>>> antennas,
>>>> attached with copper tubing from the transmitter to each of the
>>>> antennas
>>>> (which are on isolated standoffs, top to bottom.  There is some kind of
>>>> matching transformer in the building under the tower.  The tower is
>>>> 10kW,
>>>> 1450 AM (good guess on the frequency!)..
>>>>
>>> I think 1450 is a CLASS IV (or what was a CLASS IV) freq and should be
>>> 1kW. What's the callsign and location?
>>>
>>> leon
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] POE up AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

So now that the entire internet now has figured out which tower I'm talking 
about (including local competition that may not have known where my tower 
broadcasts were located)... What kind of ethernet/POE shielding would allow 
me to run my switches/power packs/etc at the bottom of this tower based on 
1kW?

- Original Message - 
From: "Leon Zetekoff" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower


> WMFJ is 1 kw as I thought. Matter of fact I might have been at that
> station evaluating it for a friends family in the 90s. It was one
> station in Daytona.
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?call=wmfj&x=15&y=6&sr=Y&s=C
>
> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>> I am guessing WMFJ
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE"
>> 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 7:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>>
>>
>>> * Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 1/3/2009 7:33 PM:
>>>> The tower is a 4-leg self supporting tower, it was built a long time
>>>> ago,
>>>> built from what I've heard in the mid 1900's...  The antennas for
>>>> the tower
>>>> are isolated from the tower, it appears that there are 3 vertical
>>>> antennas,
>>>> attached with copper tubing from the transmitter to each of the
>>>> antennas
>>>> (which are on isolated standoffs, top to bottom.  There is some kind of
>>>> matching transformer in the building under the tower.  The tower is
>>>> 10kW,
>>>> 1450 AM (good guess on the frequency!)..
>>>>
>>> I think 1450 is a CLASS IV (or what was a CLASS IV) freq and should be
>>> 1kW. What's the callsign and location?
>>>
>>> leon
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] POE up AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

The tower is a 4-leg self supporting tower, it was built a long time ago, 
built from what I've heard in the mid 1900's...  The antennas for the tower 
are isolated from the tower, it appears that there are 3 vertical antennas, 
attached with copper tubing from the transmitter to each of the antennas 
(which are on isolated standoffs, top to bottom.  There is some kind of 
matching transformer in the building under the tower.  The tower is 10kW, 
1450 AM (good guess on the frequency!)..

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower


> Are you sure it is non-live?  Normally AM antennas are the whole tower. 
> Is
> it sitting on an insulator at the base?  Do you know the power of the
> transmitter?  160 feet sure fits the mold of a quarter wavelength 
> vertical.
> Like 1460 kHz.  If it is shunt fed, then you will have a tap up about a
> quarter of the way energizing the whole tower.  Or it could be base fed 
> and
> there would be a matching network/loading network in a transformer shed or
> enclosure at the base.  Either way if it is an active AM tower of that
> length the whole tower most certaily has current on it.
>
> The best way would be to run the POE ethernet cable in the exact same 
> manner
> as the tower light (presuming it has one, at 160' that is not a
> requirement).  You can make a choke coil out of copper tubing and run the
> cat5 through the tubing.  There are also commercially made isolation
> transformers for doing this but each is customized to the type of antenna
> and the frequency.
>
> Be better yet if you can run it in conduit clear to where you are mounting
> the equipment.  Lots of factors would influence whether or not you would
> want to ground the shield and if so where.  The voltage on a grounded
> quarter wave stick goes from zero to infinity (in theory).  The main thing
> is to keep the AM current off the CAT 5 totally if you can.  If you 
> cannot,
> you would want to bond the shield to the tower every 10 feet to keep the
> magnitude of the current low.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Doug Ratcliffe" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 12:06 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>
>
>> We've had for many years access to a non-live AM radio tower (by 
>> non-live,
>> the antennas are mounted on the sides of the tower, insulated, look like
>> long steel cables).  For a long time we ran AC to the top, into a small
>> choke/transformer (some little gizmo) that filtered the AM radio signal,
>> along with a fiber cable to the bottom.  A lightning strike zapped all 
>> the
>> equipment a few years ago, and we never replaced it.  The time has come
>> that we need to put equipment on it again.
>>
>> I'd like to move towards running POE to the bottom, and at the top would
>> be Nanostations 2/5's.  The tower is 160 ft tall self-supporting.  I was
>> thinking about running shielded twisted pair cable.  In the past we've
>> been able to run short lengths of CAT5 at the top from the main power 
>> box,
>> but the last time any experimentation was done with CAT5 was with a 
>> former
>> partner, and the now deceased engineer that used to run the radio 
>> station.
>>
>> Would the shielded cable remove the interference/static charge/etc or is
>> this just not possible?
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] POE up AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

In the case of grounding every 20-40 feet, what are you doing to achieve 
this without breaking down the water resistant jacket on the cable?  Using 
an inline RJ45 POE surge protector?  A ground tap clamp?

Also, in the case of Nanostations, the ground is done via the metal RJ45 STP 
connectors (the metal connector is the ground supposedly).  Should I avoid 
hooking that STP ground up altogether?

- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Harnish" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower


> Doug,
>
> We have POE running on an identical AM tower (fairly low wattage)
> configuration.  We did used shielded cable and I believe we are grounding
> the shield to the tower every 20-40' (can't remember).  The shield does 
> pick
> up the AM transmission and we also used ferrite beads at the bottom.  Like
> Jack says, it is extremely tricky to pull off and much care and patience
> needs to happen in the engineering to ensure a workable solution.  We do
> have Canopy 5.2 running POE on this tower.
>
> Rick Harnish
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:36 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower
>
> Doug,
>
> The only way to tell if using shielded cable would work is to try it.
> Every high-power (radio tower) situation is unique. Most tower problems
> occur on high-power FM towers where the FM frequency is close to the
> Ethernet frequency but problems can easily exist on AM towers too
> depending on AM transmit power levels, proximity to your cabling,
> effectiveness of your shielding and grounding, filters internal to and
> external from your equipment, etc. This topic (with examples) can be
> discussed endlessly but each and every tower is going to be unique so if
> you want a quick and correct answer then I'd suggest just going ahead
> and trying it. Do your best on the initial shielding and grounding to
> get the best result then see if that is good enough to meet your needs.
>
> jack
>
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> We've had for many years access to a non-live AM radio tower (by 
>> non-live,
> the antennas are mounted on the sides of the tower, insulated, look like
> long steel cables).  For a long time we ran AC to the top, into a small
> choke/transformer (some little gizmo) that filtered the AM radio signal,
> along with a fiber cable to the bottom.  A lightning strike zapped all the
> equipment a few years ago, and we never replaced it.  The time has come 
> that
> we need to put equipment on it again.
>>
>> I'd like to move towards running POE to the bottom, and at the top would
> be Nanostations 2/5's.  The tower is 160 ft tall self-supporting.  I was
> thinking about running shielded twisted pair cable.  In the past we've 
> been
> able to run short lengths of CAT5 at the top from the main power box, but
> the last time any experimentation was done with CAT5 was with a former
> partner, and the now deceased engineer that used to run the radio station.
>>
>> Would the shielded cable remove the interference/static charge/etc or is
> this just not possible?
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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.
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
> Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
> WISPs - Do you know where your customers are?
> For wireless coverage mapping see http://www.ask-wi.com/mapping
> FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger>
> Phone 818-227-4220  Email 
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Power Reboot and Meter

[Doug Ratcliffe]

http://www.digital-loggers.com/lpc.html

It's more ports but starts at $109...  Ours have worked perfect for us over 
the years.

- Original Message - 
From: "Cliff Olle" 
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power Reboot and Meter


> This what you are looking for? 
> http://dataprobe.com/iboot-remote-reboot.html
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 1:34 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Power Reboot and Meter
>
> Does anyone know of a single outlet or otherwise small Ethernet based 
> remote
> reboot and power metering device?  I don't want to spend $700 on a regular
> rack mounted one because I would never make my money back.  Ideas?
>
>
> -
> 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] POE up AM radio tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We've had for many years access to a non-live AM radio tower (by non-live, the 
antennas are mounted on the sides of the tower, insulated, look like long steel 
cables).  For a long time we ran AC to the top, into a small choke/transformer 
(some little gizmo) that filtered the AM radio signal, along with a fiber cable 
to the bottom.  A lightning strike zapped all the equipment a few years ago, 
and we never replaced it.  The time has come that we need to put equipment on 
it again.

I'd like to move towards running POE to the bottom, and at the top would be 
Nanostations 2/5's.  The tower is 160 ft tall self-supporting.  I was thinking 
about running shielded twisted pair cable.  In the past we've been able to run 
short lengths of CAT5 at the top from the main power box, but the last time any 
experimentation was done with CAT5 was with a former partner, and the now 
deceased engineer that used to run the radio station.  

Would the shielded cable remove the interference/static charge/etc or is this 
just not possible?



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Potential Dr.'s office asking about our network and HIPAA?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

If the Doctor isn't encrypting medical-related data with SSL or VPN before 
it leaves HIS network, he's violating the HIPAA guidelines.  How often does 
a doctor use a public wi-fi network to check on charts & labs from the 
hospital via a website?  The SSL is what makes it compliant, now if you're 
talking about point to point (office to office) he may want to get a VPN 
router.

- Original Message - 
From: "John McDowell" 
To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General List" 
; "Principal WISPA Member List" 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Potential Dr.'s office asking about our network and HIPAA?


> We are routed, but from any computer on the network, we can go to any IP 
> on
> the network. So its like our broadcast is routed, but we're still bridged?
>
> Anyhow, I have a potential Dr.'s office that is asking about the security 
> of
> his information across our network until it leaves the NOC. How do you 
> guys
> do network security? Vlans? PPPoE?  What can we do to ensure that we can
> comply with HIPAA standards for potential clients like this?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> -- 
> John M. McDowell
> Boonlink Communications
> 307 Grand Ave NW
> Fort Payne, AL 35967
> 256.844.9932
> j...@boonlink.com
> www.boonlink.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
> privileged.
> Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee),
> you may not use, copy, re-transmit, or disclose to anyone the message or 
> any
> information contained in the message. If you have received the message in
> error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail j...@boonlink.com, and
> delete the message. E-mail communication is highly susceptible to 
> spoofing,
> spamming, and other tampering, some of which may be harmful to your
> computer. If you are concerned about the authenticity of the message or 
> the
> source, please contact the sender directly.
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TDD GPS Sync in Wifi chipsets ...

[Doug Ratcliffe]

That brings Skypilot back as a viable solution for WISPs again...

- Original Message - 
From: "Gino Villarini" 
To: ; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:47 PM
Subject: [WISPA] TDD GPS Sync in Wifi chipsets ...


> Apparently Skypilot has done it
>
> http://www.dailywireless.org/2008/12/11/skypilot-synchronous-mesh-to-end
> -users/
>
> even has firmware for Ubiquity line of CPE
>
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> g...@aeronetpr.com
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Where is JAB when we need them

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Big question is though, the guys using Redline & Alvarion, is their monthly 
ARPU much higher than the Canopy/Others?

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:56 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Where is JAB when we need them


>  Redline 286 0.334058
>  Alvarion 4027 4.70367
>  Ubiquity 1728 2.018361
>  Canopy 38583 45.06623
>  Other 7816 9.129348
>  Trango 11252 13.14271
>  Tranzeo 10029 11.71421
>  MT 11893 13.89142
>  Total 85614 100
>
>  Responses 85
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Where is JAB when we need them

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Big question is though, the guys using Redline & Alvarion, is their monthly 
ARPU much higher than the Canopy/Others?

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:56 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Where is JAB when we need them


>  Redline 286 0.334058
>  Alvarion 4027 4.70367
>  Ubiquity 1728 2.018361
>  Canopy 38583 45.06623
>  Other 7816 9.129348
>  Trango 11252 13.14271
>  Tranzeo 10029 11.71421
>  MT 11893 13.89142
>  Total 85614 100
>
>  Responses 85
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] standoffs

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We're a computer store so we have zillions of those little threaded metal 
standoffs used for computer motherboards.  I believe Cyberguys sells them in 
bulk as well, and we just buy the nuts for them from a local hardware store. 
Just do a search for "standoff".

Anyone seen a case where routerboard will not power up though after being 
mounted in a case, and if you take it out, it works on the bench again?

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

Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: [WISPA] standoffs


> Hi,
>
> Where is everyone getting metal standoffs for mounting Routerboards on
> the backplates? We would prefer metal ones, with nuts on the back and
> then machine threaded screws.
>
> Or, if there is something better, let me know.
>
> thanks,
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Great Job Mikrotik!!! (Fixed Disconnect)

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Did this effect 2.9 also, or just 3.x?  I still have a lot of 2.9 AP's out 
there...  Not really a "complaint" but I do have some network anomalies out 
there that I'm wondering if this is the solution.  Also, did this effect 
standard 802.11 2.4 wifi or just Tranzeo/other CPE types?

- Original Message - 
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Great Job Mikrotik!!! (Fixed Disconnect)


> Yes I uploaded 3.15 to all my AP's and it fixed it also.
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:40 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Great Job Mikrotik!!! (Fixed Disconnect)
>
> First time I have ever seen my Mikrotik AP with the Tranzeo clients with
> uptime that started with greater than 3 hr.  I Uploaded the new 3.15 OS
> to 2 of my AP's last Thursday and now the up time shows 3d 18:25:00.  I
> also have happy customers.  Good Job all who Helped MT see the problem
> and tested to get it fixed.
>
> Links Are below if you haven't uploaded the latest 3.15 OS.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> MikroTik RouterOS version 3.15 released!
>
> Changelog:
> http://www.mikrotik.com/download/CHANGELOG_rc
>
> Torrent files:
> http://www.mikrotik.com/download/routeros-ALL-3.15.torrent
>
> Regular HTTP download:
> http://www.mikrotik.com/download.html
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity mini-pci's worth the cost?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I have SR2/5s that I've never replaced that are from the original batch, 
installed outdoors, running at full power.   I love the MMCX connector, and 
static discharge/lightning, I had a case of a RB133 that fried from a nearby 
lightning discharge that didn't damage the SR2.

All in all, very happy with S/X/R2/5 series cards.  We went from CM9 cards 
before that.

- Original Message - 
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:43 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquity mini-pci's worth the cost?


> I've never used any Ubiquity product ever and its mainly because of the 
> $99
> price tag for a single mini-pci but from what I've been reading in some of
> the Mikrotik forums these things are pretty reliable. Now I don't need the
> extra power that they put out, basically I am considering them because 
> I've
> heard good things about them as far as reliability and never getting a new
> one DOA. I have a few questions for anyone here that has experience with
> these cards.
>
>
>
> 1. Do Ubiquity cards still create a lot of noise and consume power when
> you operate them with even with reduced TX power?
> 2. How do you like the MMCX connector? I am tired of fiddling with bad
> uf.l pigtails trying to find ones that work.
> 3. Will these cards get damaged from switching from Antenna A to B in
> the software when there is no antenna hooked to the other port?
> 4. How do these cards fair against lightning and static discharge
> compared to other cards? I never have a problem with static but I don't 
> want
> any surprises.
> 5. I'm currently using R52H's and R52's but am considering switching to
> all Ubiquity for reliability. Anyone use both and whats your thoughts?
>
>
>
> The cards I'm considering are the SR2's and SR5's. I will be running the
> cards all with reduced TX power and only using the higher TX when I need 
> to
> make up for some LMR900 coax runs.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.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] your thoughts on opps in Africa?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I just sent my $5,000 wire transfer fee, just waiting for the $25 million 
(some rich guy died with no heirs).  Maybe it's because of the number of 
scams coming from there, nobody is willing to chance running a wireless 
deal.

I mean, seriously, in the IT business, would you even believe someone if 
they contacted you with a $10 million dollar deal?

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] your thoughts on opps in Africa?


> The good ones are always in Nigeria...
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:19 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] your thoughts on opps in Africa?
>
>
>> Is it just me, or do African wireless opportunities rarely materialize?
>>
>> I've been involved in tons and tons of "big" ($10+M, in theory) projects
>> where all sorts of big numbers are thrown out, but for whatever reason,
>> someone never ultimately pulls the trigger.
>>
>> (Not sure what I'm missing, but this seems to be a running theme with
>> African projects I've ever gotten pulled in on.)
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] your thoughts on opps in Africa?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I just sent my $5,000 wire transfer fee, just waiting for the $25 million 
(some rich guy died with no heirs).  Maybe it's because of the number of 
scams coming from there, nobody is willing to chance running a wireless 
deal.

I mean, seriously, in the IT business, would you even believe someone if 
they contacted you with a $10 million dollar deal?

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] your thoughts on opps in Africa?


> The good ones are always in Nigeria...
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:19 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] your thoughts on opps in Africa?
>
>
>> Is it just me, or do African wireless opportunities rarely materialize?
>>
>> I've been involved in tons and tons of "big" ($10+M, in theory) projects
>> where all sorts of big numbers are thrown out, but for whatever reason,
>> someone never ultimately pulls the trigger.
>>
>> (Not sure what I'm missing, but this seems to be a running theme with
>> African projects I've ever gotten pulled in on.)
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] He knows what we don't... ???

[Doug Ratcliffe]

ClearWire managed to bridge the digital divide with Wimax in many places. 
So whats the big deal with what this guys doing other than the free 
investment advertisement?  He's charging monthly for access, and you still 
need a CPE to use it.  So did Towerstream.  If someone gave me 2.5 million 
I'd bridge it here too.

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] He knows what we don't... ???


> If you believe they mean true Wi-MAX then do you believe it's licensed
> Wi-MAX or licensed-lite Wi-MAX in 3650?
>
> Charles Wyble wrote:
>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a guy who is "building" a Muni WiMAX network all by himself.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> Either:
>>>
>>> a) This gentleman believes he knows a whole lot more than WISPA members
>>> know (because very few WISPA members are single-handedly building Muni
>>> Wi-MAX networks), or
>>>
>>> b) The opposite is true, or
>>>
>>> c) Neither of the above. Another journalist is conflating Wi-Fi and
>>> WiMAX (again).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No... I think they mean WiMAX. The quote:
>>
>>
>> A few more base stations would have to be installed around the city to
>> make all of Delray Beach wireless.
>>
>> to me implies WiMAX. Unless the city is quite small, I don't think a
>> handful of (meshed) Access Points could cover it.
>> I mean unless he is using 3.65Ghz perhaps?
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
> Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
> NEXT ONLINE TRAINING AUGUST 18-19 2008 
> 
> FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile 
> 
> Phone 818-227-4220  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Tower site licensing problem

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Would OTARD apply in a scenario of a mesh AP/CPE antenna?

- Original Message - 
From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem


> OTARD does not apply to any commercial usage.  It will apply to a 
> commercial
> end user, but not a system operator.
>
> Statutes that apply to HAM operators are just that, for HAM operators.
> Certainly you could make a claim, but that's about the same as saying you
> garage your car in another state to save on insurance premiums.  It's not 
> an
> issue until it becomes one.  Then you have one heck of a mess to clean up.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:44 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>
> There are two parts of the telecom act, OTARD and the Ham ruling that
> "should " be able to be used to mitigate most of this.  Especially of the
> city attorney doesn't want to do much research.  OTARD and the Ham ruling
> could probably combat the visual impact aspect.  I have successfully used
> the competitive nature of the tower they want me to collocate on to argue
> that it would give my competitor an advantage over me.  Hard to argue that
> one down.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Blake Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>
>
>> Actually, visual impact CAN be applied.  Lambs
>> Knoll MD is a good example of a recent application
>> where the tower company lost.
>>
>> A municipality can heavily regulate tower placement,
>> and if they show that another site without that
>> visual impact, or even multiple sites without that
>> visual impact can do the same job, then the site
>> with the visual impact can be legally denied.
>>
>> The federal rules about siting state that the municipality
>> cannot capriciously or unreasonably deny an
>> application, but the definition of unreasonably has still
>> never been clarified.
>>
>> Insofar as the "taking" of a tower, only allowing towers
>> that are capable and available for colocation is accepted
>> as a standard codes restriction, and has
>> been backed up in the court.  Having the municipality
>> become the leasing agent has not however.
>>
>> They can also DENY your application to build a tower
>> if suitable colocation oppurtunity exists on existing structures,
>> leaving the onus on you to show why that won't work, and
>> a financial argument won't stand up.
>>
>> Case in point,
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5clfkt
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't take your organs to heaven,
>> heaven knows we need them down here!
>> Be an organ donor, sign your donor card today.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:51 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>>
>>
>>> You gotta get a better lawyer.  Some of this stuff, especially RF
>>> emissions
>>> are federally regulated and wholly prempts local officials. It is
>>> actually
>>> easier if you call your facility cellular like in most cases because
>>> federal
>>> code can get most of this off your back.  The building code/engineering
>>> folks will still require soils analysis and structural engineering but
>>> much
>>> of the other stuff including visual impacts cannot be applied.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Joe Fiero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:30 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tower site licensing problem
>>>
>>>
 My first question is, where is this taking place?

 I ran into this in one market just recently, but it was the first time
 we
 had been classified as a "telecommunications facility", and been 
 require
 to
 go through the extensive permitting process.

 The requirements we faced were above and beyond anything I had
 experienced
 in 35 years in the wireless industry.  There was always a distinction
 made
 between a single use site and a leased telecom facility.  That seems to
 be
 coming to a close as the billion dollar mergers between the tower 
 giants
 act
 as a catalyst driving these municipalities to score what they perceive
 as
 their piece of the pie.

 In this new world order everyone gets to "eat".  And we are the ones
 they
 expect to provide the meals.

 First off we were faced with a $8500 escrow account which the
 municipality
 could use any way they deem necessary and proper to facilitate the
 permitting process.  That includes paying for their engineers, lawyers,
 or
 any other costs they incur for "experts" to testify at our hearings.

 As 

Re: [WISPA] new site install pictures

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I noticed you're using a Battery Tender, is that enough to charge and run 
all you're stuff?  Their offices are about 20 miles from here, all the times 
I've driven by there I've never thought about using that on a tower.


- Original Message - 
From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: [WISPA] new site install pictures


> Hey guys I just got some pictures uploaded of one of my AP sites if you 
> want
> to check it out. Hopefully someone starting out can benefit from it as 
> this
> is 4 years of knowledge from being on the lists here and picking up on
> better ways of how to do installs. Got any questions just ask. I'd
> appreciate some comments as well. :)
>
>
>
> http://www.wavelinc.com/towers/DSGE_Tower/
>
>
>
>
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.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] Court Injunction

[Doug Ratcliffe]

So I guess you, as a WISP, must be operating solely on licensed frequencies?

- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Fletcher, W7RAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction


> If a wireless ISP wants to avoid this interference, they're welcome to get 
> a
> license like the big boys or figure out how to configure their systems, if
> possible, to avoid the interference.  Don't make operating a wireless ISP
> business on the cheap a ham problem.
>
> Rick
>





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Court Injunction

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But when 802.11 became "easy" it invited all the people to use it who 
thought that 10 watt amps were a good idea too.  Doesn't the more amateur 
HAM users invite those who are less experienced to just crank up the power 
rather than look at the engineering of their systems?  Isn't removing a 
barrier to broadcasting as a HAM (the CW requirement) simply inviting less 
experienced, less responsible users into the band?

Like look at the CB world, how many times have you seen someone with a 
massive RF amp out there broadcasting over everyone else?

- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Fletcher, W7RAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction


> You make some good points, Chuck, but you are wrong about one thing:  The
> amateur ranks have been growing like mad since the archaic CW (Morse Code)
> requirement was eliminated.  Also, hams are still experimenting and
> innovating like never before as is demonstrated by the tremendous growth 
> of
> SDR (Software Defined Radio) amongst the ham ranks.  The Big 3 of ham 
> radio
> manufacturers (Icom, Yaesu and Kenwood) are fast losing ground to the more
> innovative ham-owned and operated companies of TenTec, Elecraft and
> Flex-Radio.  These same ham-owned companies are selling a lot of gear to 
> the
> military, so they must be on to something.
>
> Hams are pushing the envelope in satellite and microwave comms as well as
> digital communications methods which allow communications to occur at 
> levels
> 30dB below the noise floor.
>
> Anyone who thinks we're a dying breed and "parasites" with frequency
> allocations that should be reassigned to folks who can make "better use of
> it" knows absolutely nothing about what's really happening in ham radio
> today.  Of course, people talking strongly about things they don't
> understand is very common, particularly in election years.
>
> Rick, W7RAF
> Extra Class and 1st Class Radiotelephone
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 5:32 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction
>
> A KA has been a ham longer than a KD.
> (assuming it is not a vanity call sign)
> Long time hams have more passion for the subject.
>
> But really, I agree with almost everything said.  Ham really has been 
> dying
> for a very long time.
> I just get bent when some WISPs take the entitlement attitude towards ham
> freqs.
> There are lots of PhDs that work in electrodynamics that are hams and 
> merge
> their work world with their hobby world.
>
> Amateur Radio is Amateur like the Olympics used to be Amateur.
> If anything they were the most professional people in the industry.
>
> I would hire a hobbiest ham over some guy with a certificate any day of 
> the
> week.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Blake Bowers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 3:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction
>
>
>> Chuck - why would that make a bit of difference?  KD versus KA?
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

So how do we find the contact information on the international bureau's 
filings?

- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?


> You can't use ULS for earth stations. Earth stations are covered by
> the international bureau as opposed to the wireless bureau.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Jul 27, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>
>> I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them.  What I
>> can't seem
>> to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite
>> stations.
>> It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address
>> and a
>> person's name.
>>
>> I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint Communications
>> Orlando,
>> FL  county) using Frequencies 3500 to 5000mhz (All Service Types),
>> and found
>> nothing but a cancelled point to point license for AT&T.
>>
>> A quick search of the FCC site for Sprint's filing #
>> (SESRWL2000101902129)
>> finds nothing but the mention in the FCC 3650 FSS list.  If I were
>> to call
>> the FCC with that number would they be able to provide me contact
>> information for that company that pertains to the FSS department?
>>
>> I wonder if creating a website that documented all the FSS contact
>> info,
>> combined with map distance, automatic EIRP / bearing calculations
>> (i.e. the
>> stuff the FCC talks about in their 3650 document), would be
>> beneficial to
>> the other WISPs who want to serve the 125 million people who live
>> INSIDE of
>> these zones.
>>
>> It seems silly, like a 5-10W transmitter pointing the opposite
>> direction
>> would even make a difference - you would think the FCC would have
>> integrated
>> distance AND antenna direction when it comes to base station
>> registration...
>>
>> Florida is flat.  At 105km, I would need to have at least a 450 foot
>> tower
>> or higher on both ends to even send a signal that far.  45 miles
>> ended up
>> needing over 400ft on both ends.  It's not like I want to broadcast
>> 3650
>> from the top of a 10,000 foot mountain peak.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
>>
>>
>>> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>>>> Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected
>>>> zones?
>>>> Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW,
>>>> 146.7km
>>>> next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage
>>>> in that
>>>> direction - mainly north and northwest.  But according to the FCC,
>>>> I'd be
>>>> dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't
>>>> even
>>>> have
>>>> phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would
>>>> look like
>>>> they would even know what I was talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have done several blog posts on this subject:
>>>
>>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/satellite-related-brain-dump.html
>>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/80211y-3650-mhz-in-southern-california.html
>>>
>>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu.html
>>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu_05.html
>>>
>>> Hope that helps.
>>>> And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to
>>>> anyone
>>>> with
>>>> the power to make a real decision.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>> Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to
>>>> their
>>>> FCC
>>>> attorney of record?  Is the consent more like a contract?  Would
>>>> they be
>>>> able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)?  Is this like
>>>> asking
>>>> for keys to the space shuttle?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excellent questions. Hopefully someone here can help.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
>>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
>>> CTO Known Element Enterp

Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them.  What I can't seem 
to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite stations. 
It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address and a 
person's name.

I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint Communications Orlando, 
FL  county) using Frequencies 3500 to 5000mhz (All Service Types), and found 
nothing but a cancelled point to point license for AT&T.

A quick search of the FCC site for Sprint's filing # (SESRWL2000101902129) 
finds nothing but the mention in the FCC 3650 FSS list.  If I were to call 
the FCC with that number would they be able to provide me contact 
information for that company that pertains to the FSS department?

I wonder if creating a website that documented all the FSS contact info, 
combined with map distance, automatic EIRP / bearing calculations (i.e. the 
stuff the FCC talks about in their 3650 document), would be beneficial to 
the other WISPs who want to serve the 125 million people who live INSIDE of 
these zones.

It seems silly, like a 5-10W transmitter pointing the opposite direction 
would even make a difference - you would think the FCC would have integrated 
distance AND antenna direction when it comes to base station registration...

Florida is flat.  At 105km, I would need to have at least a 450 foot tower 
or higher on both ends to even send a signal that far.  45 miles ended up 
needing over 400ft on both ends.  It's not like I want to broadcast 3650 
from the top of a 10,000 foot mountain peak.

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?


> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones?
>> Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km
>> next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that
>> direction - mainly north and northwest.  But according to the FCC, I'd be
>> dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even 
>> have
>> phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like
>> they would even know what I was talking about.
>>
>
> I have done several blog posts on this subject:
>
> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/satellite-related-brain-dump.html
> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/80211y-3650-mhz-in-southern-california.html
>
> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu.html
> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu_05.html
>
> Hope that helps.
>> And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone 
>> with
>> the power to make a real decision.
>>
>
> Indeed.
>> Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their 
>> FCC
>> attorney of record?  Is the consent more like a contract?  Would they be
>> able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)?  Is this like 
>> asking
>> for keys to the space shuttle?
>>
>
> Excellent questions. Hopefully someone here can help.
>
>
> -- 
> Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
> CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? 
Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km 
next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that 
direction - mainly north and northwest.  But according to the FCC, I'd be 
dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have 
phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like 
they would even know what I was talking about.

And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with 
the power to make a real decision.

Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC 
attorney of record?  Is the consent more like a contract?  Would they be 
able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)?  Is this like asking 
for keys to the space shuttle?





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] The nanostation thing....

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But the control point would be at the tower, not remote.  I know some WISPs 
operate in remote areas, but this is more for a high density urban 
deployment, similar to what you would use AirSpan or Alvarion for.

The reasoning behind the FDD style deployment would be to help compete 
against 10Mbps+ cable connections.  Right now a 6 AP deployment usually has 
about 10Mbps for each AP (Canopy, Trango).  My thought is to transmit-sync a 
50Mbps (40mhz turbo-mode) signal, with the vision that you could give fiber 
speeds wirelessly.  Or, with 50Mbps of bandwidth (per sector) it would give 
you the ability to serve thousands of subscribers in a high density 
deployment.  The other though would be to be able to multicast MPEG4 video 
over it.

My vision is to keep us being able to compete with cable & DSL for years to 
come without spending a fortune.  If an open source system could interface 
with 6 NS5's ($600) plus a rackmount PC ($1000), that's a Wimax-style QOS 
deployment for less than the price of a single Canopy unit.  The other 
thought is that single NS5's are 802.11 and have no ability to transmit sync 
(i.e. share frequencies) like other systems do.  By giving it the ability to 
do that, you have an inexpensive hardware platform with $1 per AP 
features.

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing


> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago 
>> were
>> to have a 2 part system:
>>
>> An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act 
>> as a
>> raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the 
>> tower
>> control room that is the "intelligence", like Wimax-style QoS, polling, 
>> VOIP
>> control etc.
>
> Isn't that how the Cisco solution works with a Wireless Lan Controller?
> This works great in campus
> environments which usually have a 100mbps or gigabit wired backbone, but
> not necessarily in
> WISP type deployments.
>
> In the case of a WISP you may have an exclusive wireless network
> (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with WiMAX or other RF
> back haul ).
> or a hybrid model (wireless link between CPE and aggregation point with
> DSL/T1 back haul).  Having the additional network infrastructure
> overhead on networks carrying customer traffic may or may not saturate
> your pipe.
>
> If you have the money to build separate control and data paths great!
>
>>  The outside part could be connected via network switch to
>> allow a failover master control unit.
>>
>
> Certainly. You want a reliable core.
>> I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server 
>> or
>> even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the 
>> CPU
>> power of a Nanostation).
>
> Certainly.  Perhaps something like a mini ITX server.
>
>>   It would also allow the ability to sync AP
>> broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability.  That would allow 
>> the
>> outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high 
>> speed
>> communications.  Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine
>> that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot 
>> system
>> on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss).
>>
>
>
> Interesting. Didn't quite follow all that, but I will research it.
>
>
>> I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a
>> separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would 
>> simply
>> switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch 
>> again
>> to transmit.
>
> Seems like a massive amount of overhead. What would the reasons and
> advantages/disadvantages for such an approach be?
>
>>
>> That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz
>> channel upstream.  My thoughts were having the capability of sending out
>> 50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a "dumb" wireless driver would be
>> very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does
>> everything but cook your breakfast).
>>
>
> mmhmm.
>> I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 
>> 5/10
>> mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless.  The separate TX/RX
>> channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the 
>> unit
>> that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter uni

Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing....

[Doug Ratcliffe]

My thoughts on this I've even mentied on the Mikrotik forum a while ago were 
to have a 2 part system:

An outdoor wireless unit (like a Nanostation) that does nothing but act as a 
raw wireless interface, that connects to a master station inside the tower 
control room that is the "intelligence", like Wimax-style QoS, polling, VOIP 
control etc.  The outside part could be connected via network switch to 
allow a failover master control unit.

I would think the inside part would be a rack mountable Intel/AMD server or 
even an inexpensive workstation (since even a $250 computer has 20x the CPU 
power of a Nanostation).  It would also allow the ability to sync AP 
broadcast, and maybe even include GPS sync capability.  That would allow the 
outdoor unit to be minimal in flash and CPU speed but still allow high speed 
communications.  Taken further into a 6x60 deg NS2/NS5 AP tower, combine 
that with mesh for tower to tower communications and have a Skypilot system 
on steroids (tower to tower routing with no hop loss).

I had taken the idea to a second level having a FDD-style system with a 
separate transmit unit and recieve unit outdoors where the CPE would simply 
switch frequencies or polarities to recieve their packets, and switch again 
to transmit.  With the NS2/NS5 dual polarity antennas that's something that 
would be doable vs. my original idea of using the 2ft dishes and dual 
polarity LNBs.

That could allow for a 40mhz-turbo mode broadcast (GPS synced) with 5mhz 
channel upstream.  My thoughts were having the capability of sending out 
50Mbps+ downstream to clients (assuming a "dumb" wireless driver would be 
very light on CPU usage compared to, say, a Mikrotik unit that does 
everything but cook your breakfast).

I tried some concept stuff using MadWifi but without CSMA/CD disable, 5/10 
mhz channel support, etc it was kinda pointless.  The separate TX/RX 
channels came as a crutch idea for CSMA/CD because you could tell the unit 
that it is recieving on a disconnected antenna for the transmitter unit (so 
it would never detect carrier).  In theory, it's basically like piping the 
raw wireless data directly into the eth0 interface.  Nothing else on the 
outdoor part, all of the intelligence is in the indoor portion of the unit.

Anyone like it?

- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] The nanostation thing


> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> In short, it was to create a open source platform for WISP use.   I 
>> called
>> it WISP-OS.   All the functions of routing, firewalling, dhcp client and
>> server, and all the other networking functions are out there and
>> consistently being improved in the open source community.
>
> Very true. See http://www.zeroshell.org/ for a fantastic turn key 
> solution.
>
>
>>   What, however,
>> is needed is not another implementation of routing or firewalls,
>
> Amen to that. :)
>
>> but deep
>> down fundamental efforts to improve the drivers for the common, cheap
>> chipsets.
>>
>
> Right. Madwifi  ( http://madwifi.org/ ) is pretty good but having
> trouble keeping up with new Atheros models.
>
>> I got several interested parties including developers and WISP's, but the
>> obstacle is the funding.
>>
>> The reason you need substantial funding:   The wireless driver holds the 
>> key
>> here.  You need the license from Atheros, and that alone is a serious 
>> chunk
>> of money.   We came up with a couple of viable methods of making the idea
>> work.   The driver development has to keep the Atheros sources closed, 
>> and
>> like other people have done, fundamental adjustment of the MAC would be 
>> the
>> ultimate function.
>>
>
> So what exactly are you referring to here which requires a license? The
> IP core? The HAL?
>
>> I saw this coming down the road when then software companies were moving
>> toward becoming a closed hardware/software platform.  The idea was to
>> produce a licensable driver that could be integrated into any new 
>> hardware
>> that might come down the pike, and put research into development of 
>> features
>> that could be universally shared.
>>
>
> Right. Like a large majority of open source projects solving horizontal
> market problems. :)
>> Right now, each developer has created their own 'non interoperable' 
>> feature
>> set.   So you want WiMax?   Great.  Only the basic feature set is
>> interoperable among all.
>>
>
> Yep.
>> Anyway, the purpose was to let WISP's guide the direction of development.
>> So, you want to use the cheap NanoStation?   No problem.  The open source
>> community has almost everything needed.  And each hardware platform could
>> have any/all advanced features.
>>
>> So, instead of Star-OS having great performance, but only with itself, 
>> same
>> with MikroTik, any hardware platform could share a full feature set.
>>
>
> Well to a certain extent software controls a lot of things, but

Re: [WISPA] Meraki called "embarrassment to wi-fi"

[Doug Ratcliffe]

The main argument is that they had a nice scalable open(able) platform when 
they had the $49 "Minis".  They enticed everyone to get on board with a 
pretty interface.  Then they took the standard Mini and put advertising on 
it, forcing you to either upgrade or stop using it.  Now they are big, the 
standard minis have automatic advertising, and if you don't like that you 
can buy the $149 Pro model, so basically, you're taxed $100 if you don't 
like their ads, when in reality the similar SOC unit with Open-Mesh from 
Accton is less than $40 in quanities of 20 with no advertising, and soon to 
have support for a billing option that uses your credit card gateway (i.e. 
no 20% fee).

That said, I have a 120 unit building with about 20 Meraki Pro's with 
billing turned on, that generates about $250-400 a month in revenue (usually 
about 15-20 users a month @ $20 each), that I get a check in the mail 
monthly, I never really do anything, signup is automatic, no servers 
required.  They send you an email (which could be email to SMS for a text 
message) if a unit doesn't respond for 60 minutes.  Their software shows 
uptime, bandwidth usage, everything you could ask for pretty much.

I've had more stolen than fail, actually (velcro-secured back then).  In 
fact from October 2007 until now, I've never had one go bad but I've had 4 
go missing.

- Original Message - 
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:41 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Meraki called "embarrassment to wi-fi"


>I overheard a WLAN engineer recently call Meraki "an embarassment to
> wi-fi".  I was little suprised, as I've heard decent things about it,
> considering how scalable it is for being a product that's easy for the
> masses to implement.
>
> Is there something I'm not getting?  I've heard that the units break
> down quite frequently (compared to other more expensive units), but
> given the fact that they're so cheap, I would imagine the OPEX and CAPEX
> numbers come about right, particularly for lower end apartment buildings.
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Some months we have 30 signups, and no calls.  Other times we have 10 and 2 
of them call.  I'd say you should expect about 2-3 calls a month per month 
per building if your service doesn't go offline.  And even if it does they 
don't always call.

All the signups are done online with no calls to us, via credit card.  Its 
really bulletproof, and Meraki sends us a check every month (I have one in 
front of me actually).  Open-Mesh has no billing yet, but they support some 
third party packages for credit card billing in beta.  The nice part about 
Meraki is that you don't even need a merchant account, they do everything 
for you and send you a check.  All for "only" 20% of your billing...  The 
open mesh billing betas, have some pay by the month and some buy-it-outright 
but we haven't started with that yet.

Meraki & Open-Mesh have excellent monitoring & notification tools to tell 
you it's down, ping stats, uptime information (per repeater & gateway).

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts


> Doug or others doing low arpu MTU residential,
>
> How do you handle support for the services.
> Are you doing it as best effort, without support?
>
> Or are there tricks of the trade to doing it effectively?
>
> When your users, are getting service cheap, are they learning to be more
> tech savy on their own?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts
>
>
>> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>>> We've done a lot of condos.  For free wifi, a 2.4 mesh network like
>>> open-mesh covers most decent sized condos (~100 units) for less than a
>>> grand.   Then you can charge $5/unit, blow away the cable company and
>>> have the thing paid back in 3 months.
>>
>> I haven't yet played with open mesh stuff.
>>
>> Here's an article I found googling for it
>>
>> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Open-Mesh-Picks-Up-Where-Meraki-Left-Off-92532
>>
>>> We also install pay on demand which has had moderate success - a 120
>>> unit apartment condo building, $9.95/wk, $19.95/month, we get about
>>> 10-15 signups a month and Meraki sends us a check minus their fee.
>>> Still takes a year or so to pay it back but its really been a zero
>>> maintenance building minus the occasional person who can't get their
>>> wifi working at first.
>>
>> I like that.  That could work for poorer areas, particularly types that
>> don't want the long term commitment for wifi.
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Some months we have 30 signups, and no calls.  Other times we have 10 and 2 
of them call.  I'd say you should expect about 2-3 calls a month per month 
per building if your service doesn't go offline.  And even if it does they 
don't always call.

All the signups are done online with no calls to us, via credit card.  Its 
really bulletproof, and Meraki sends us a check every month (I have one in 
front of me actually).  Open-Mesh has no billing yet, but they support some 
third party packages for credit card billing in beta.  The nice part about 
Meraki is that you don't even need a merchant account, they do everything 
for you and send you a check.  All for "only" 20% of your billing...  The 
open mesh billing betas, have some pay by the month and some buy-it-outright 
but we haven't started with that yet.

Meraki & Open-Mesh have excellent monitoring & notification tools to tell 
you it's down, ping stats, uptime information (per repeater & gateway).

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts


> Doug or others doing low arpu MTU residential,
>
> How do you handle support for the services.
> Are you doing it as best effort, without support?
>
> Or are there tricks of the trade to doing it effectively?
>
> When your users, are getting service cheap, are they learning to be more
> tech savy on their own?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 3:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts
>
>
>> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>>> We've done a lot of condos.  For free wifi, a 2.4 mesh network like
>>> open-mesh covers most decent sized condos (~100 units) for less than a
>>> grand.   Then you can charge $5/unit, blow away the cable company and
>>> have the thing paid back in 3 months.
>>
>> I haven't yet played with open mesh stuff.
>>
>> Here's an article I found googling for it
>>
>> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Open-Mesh-Picks-Up-Where-Meraki-Left-Off-92532
>>
>>> We also install pay on demand which has had moderate success - a 120
>>> unit apartment condo building, $9.95/wk, $19.95/month, we get about
>>> 10-15 signups a month and Meraki sends us a check minus their fee.
>>> Still takes a year or so to pay it back but its really been a zero
>>> maintenance building minus the occasional person who can't get their
>>> wifi working at first.
>>
>> I like that.  That could work for poorer areas, particularly types that
>> don't want the long term commitment for wifi.
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We've done a lot of condos.  For free wifi, a 2.4 mesh network like 
open-mesh covers most decent sized condos (~100 units) for less than a 
grand.   Then you can charge $5/unit, blow away the cable company and have 
the thing paid back in 3 months.

We also install pay on demand which has had moderate success - a 120 unit 
apartment condo building, $9.95/wk, $19.95/month, we get about 10-15 signups 
a month and Meraki sends us a check minus their fee.  Still takes a year or 
so to pay it back but its really been a zero maintenance building minus the 
occasional person who can't get their wifi working at first.



- Original Message - 
From: "Rogelio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 12:25 PM
Subject: [WISPA] MSOs investing heavily in wi-fi rollouts


> One trend I'm seeing is for cable companies to purchase a ubiquitous
> wifi infrastructure in new areas.
>
> These numbers aren't too far off from some numbers I saw yesterday:
>
> --$50K to put in ubiquitous wifi for a time share condo (retail is way
> more, like $70K; but MSOs get discounts)
> --$20/mo for each unit
> --$20/mo * 100 units * 12 months = $24,000/year in revenue the cable
> cable company can ear
>
> => paid off equipment in approx two years
>
> Anyone else seeing those numbers / trends?
>
> In fact, it seems as if bringing cable companies into the deals has been
> a sure way to close these large purchases in some cases.
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Tiger Direct is Breaking the Law

[Doug Ratcliffe]

When we bought some 1W amps for export to a non-FCC country, Hyperlink made 
us sign a military/export use only form and fax it back to them.

It was not just a "buy online" thing.

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tiger Direct is Breaking the Law


> John,
>
> The Link provided is for a 500mw amp extender.  500mw with small Omni is 
> not
> illegal power levels in 2.4Ghz unlicensed.
> Lucor very wel could have gotten that certified as a combination.
>
> If they had a 1 watt  model, well that would be different.
> But Take note that it is not illegal to make or sell 1 watt amps.  It is
> illegal to "use" a 1 watt amp in the US. We live in an international 
> world,
> where many are not governed by the FCC.
>
> I would argue that the buyer is the one in violation of laws, if they use 
> it
> in the US. What might be more appropriate, is to create laws requiring
> resellers to report who they sell equipment that exceeds FCC allowable
> limits to in the US.  Or to force the reseller that sells equipment to US
> customers, to publically also post in advertisements that "it is not legal
> for use in US", and Force the MAnufacturer to include paperwork in the 
> box,
> that states that it is not legal for use within the US. So that
> unknowledgeable end users, are not incouraged to buy illegal equipment,
> without realizing that they are doing it.
>
> If Tiger is selling 1 watt amps, without disclosing its legality in the 
> US,
> then they should be reported. But I don;t think any one should be 
> prevented
> from making or sellign anything, if disclosures are made.
>
> Don;t get me wrong, I hate that stuff, when manufacturers start 
> encouraging
> endusers to use AMPs for their end user PC. But that is a line item for a
> lobby effort to the FCC, not necessarilly anything illegal.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Tiger Direct is Breaking the Law
>
>
>>I think it's the manufacturers that need to be reported, not the
>> distributors or resellers. I know Hyperlink and YDI both still sell 1
>> watt amps right off their homepage.
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> John Scrivner wrote:
>>> There is no way this is close to legal:
>>>
>>> Tiger Direct Wi-Fi Booster
>>> Amp
>>>
>>> Does the FCC have a place where we can report this crap? This is 
>>> flagrant
>>> abuse of the band and will lead to less usability of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi for
>>> our
>>> purposes if we do not stand up and stop this type of behavior from
>>> vendors
>>> who sell crap.
>>> Scriv
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.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] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Does that apply to part 15 modular approval as well for SR2/SR5/XR2/XR5?

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)


> I've been in contact with UBNT for some time.The modular approval
> specifies the antenna to be used, and it is, according to both the FCC (
> email from the FCC in response to an inquiry ) and UBNT entirely legal to
> use with any OS that properly operates the card.
>
> So, yes you can grow your own, and if nothing else, you simply use the FCC
> ID on the card itself as your FCC ID...If you wish to have your own
> number on the box, you must apply to the FCC for your own number, and 
> simply
> cite the "this is unchanged from XX " in your applicaiton.
>
> All stated clearly and unambiguously by the FCC personell.
>
> I hope this puts this argument to bed.Modular approval is just that.
> The module, ON ITS OWN, is approved and can be put in anything 
> appropriate.
> Again, stated clearly by the FCC.
>
> BTW, on your license, you're required to put the ID of the equipment 
> you're
> putting in place.   In this case, it's the FCC ID for UBNT.
>
> BTW, current XR3's out now are not ACTUALLY the right card.   I've been
> promised a pair from the first stickered and channelized batch.   I would
> not deploy anything being sold by retailers right now, as they are pretty
> much engineering mules...   Not optimized and not properly channel 
> filtered
> and limited.
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Randy Cosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations (was: Rapid Link Launches WiMax)
>
>
>>I had a feeling this would unleash a can of worms.
>>
>> I'm the one who registered the locations.  My first location (my office
>> rooftop) was done purely as an academic exercise to see what exactly was
>> required.  I had hoped the FCC would come back and say, "you need to do
>> X Y and Z before this is acceptable." I would have been fine with that
>> and taken that into consideration in my feasibility study.  They did not.
>>
>> Since then, there has been some further digging to clarify some
>> questions that were brought up by this approval.  From what I
>> understand, using the XR3, MT and an 18dbi antenna (or smaller) is
>> approved as far as Part 90 goes.  See
>> http://forum.ubnt.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451&start=14 for
>> clarification.
>>
>> Now, if you were to go out and SELL that bundle as a product, I would
>> think there would need to be further licensing
>> (http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ ) to be approved. Hana Wireless (
>> http://www.streakwave.com/mmSWAVE1/Video/HW3.pdf ) is selling pretty
>> much the same kit I made myself, but I do NOT see any OET approvals for
>> them.   I hear other WISPS are using the Hana units, but I see nothing
>> of the sort registered in ULS, so I would think they are not legal.
>>
>> If I use any of these, they will be for PTP links.  Because the XR3 was
>> only approved for 18dBi antennas, and has a max output of 25dbm (see
>> *http://tinyurl.com/4jpndg *,
>> http://ubnt.com/downloads/ubi_mtik_power.pdf ) and assuming .5 dB loss
>> for the jumper cable, at slow speeds we're only going to get a 42.5 dBm
>> or 17.8 watts, not the full 20 watts allowed under the rules in a 20 mhz
>> channel.   If you want  to run  at full 54 mbps, you will only get 18
>> dBm on the radio,  plus 18 on the antenna, or 35.5 dbm, or 3.5 watts.
>> Not the ideal PTP solution.
>>
>> So is it moral or legal to run it?  I'm glad this has stirred some
>> debate and further clarifications.  I'd like to see 802.11Y moved along
>> and put into MT and the cards, that would help open up lots of other
>> non-wimax possibilities.  For now, it is what it is.  I've seen nothing
>> to indicate it is illegal.  Is it unwise?
>>
>> I honestly am interested in hearing verifiable refutations to anything
>> I've found so far.  I want to do what is legal, as well as wise.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
>>> George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has to
>>> be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based protocol.
>>>
>>> Leon
>>>
>>> * George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM:
>>>
 Thanks for explaining that Travis.
 I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently.
 There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I forwarded
 it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the way the post
 read.

 I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from the
 FCC.

 As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for most
 of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and go. It
 sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected.

 Georg

Re: [WISPA] Email

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We charge $60/month for a domain with 10 or less addresses.  We use 
Hmailserver with the built in antispam and it works very good, and is open 
source and free, runs on Windows.

I do get some spam but the false negatives are so infrequent I don't check 
my spambox anymore.

- Original Message - 
From: "Ross Cornett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 11:54 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Email


> Anyone charging for email sevices?  We are spending lots on email servers 
> and Postini Services... Anyone out there charging for email and if so how 
> is it going?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ross
> _
> Galatians 6:7-8: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man 
> soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of 
> the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the 
> Spirit reap life everlasting."
> _
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] MT announces RB192 and RB333

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Did I notice on both of those boards, an FCC compliance and CE logo?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:30 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT announces RB192 and RB333

The 192 appears to be the same platform as all other 100 series.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT announces RB192 and RB333


> Am I correct in reading that both of these new boards will require v3 of 
> the OS? I have yet to see a stable, production worthy v3 release. :(
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> To quote normis:
>>
>> Announcing RB333 and RB192, two new RouterBOARD products beginning to 
>> reach distributors at the end of next week!
>> http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb192b.pdf
>> http://www.routerboard.com/pdf/rb333b.pdf
>>
>> For now, limited availability only, ask for samples at our distributors.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>


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


>>
>


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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/897 - Release Date: 7/11/2007
9:57 PM



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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner'stakeon"Broadband"..

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But if you're running fiber anyways, isn't the labor cost per mile the same
with single fiber vs. say, 100 fibers in a single cable?  Virtually
limitless, I would think.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC
Commissioner'stakeon"Broadband"..

Fiber is definitely higher capacity than coax; you would be stupid to do a
"from-scratch" coax buildout.  The two main difficulties with coax
infrastructure is
1. It's broadcast--meaning that's a shared capacity, and, technically
speaking, everything that goes to one subscriber goes to all subscribers
(kinda like wireless in a sense).
2. Slow return path.  It's hard to do a large capacity on the return path
simply because the equipment on the subscriber end usually is fairly low end
and has a lot more noise to start out with.  If you amp it up to get more
power (and capacity) you increase the noise way to quickly.

Not really too different from wireless in those ways, just has a lot more
theoretical capacity

Fiber doesn't have any of these problems (although a lot of FTTH
implementations are vaguely broadcast-style as well), and the massive speeds
we see out of fiber are only the beginning.  Still, for the time being,
cable MSOs are in good shape in terms of the actual physical cabling
technology and aren't facing the hard physical limits of copper pair like
the telcos.

-Clint Ricker
Kentnis Technologies

On 7/25/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Coax can do 50 gigabit?  Fiber can do a heck of a lot more than that.  A
> 32
> channel DWDM system can currently do 320 gigs with 1280 gigs not far
> off.  I
> have heard of systems doing more than 32 channels.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 1:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's
> takeon"Broadband"..
>
>
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "WISPA General List" 
> > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:40:19 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Broadband Baloney? An FCC Commissioner's take
> > on"Broadband"..
> >
> >> I think you missed my point here.  My point is that forcing telcos to
> >> > resell their network layer does absolutely nothing to connect
> >> > additional people.  If I resell AT&T DSL to someone on AT&T's
> network,
> >> > they could have just as easily gotten it from AT&T.
> >> So you think that CLEC's and ISP's have never actually brought the
> >> Internet or a new service to anyone? That's striking. Yes the footprint
> >> does not grow, but certainly the penetration does.
> >
> > Back when the Internet was new, they were great for this because they
> > generally had better customer relationships with the customers.  These
> > days,
> > Internet is commodity--in almost every case, if they didn't get it from
> > the
> > ISP or CLEC, they would get it from the cable company or telco.
> >
> > And without the revenue from the rented network, how would anyone build
> >> new facilities?
> >
> >
> > Revenue from the services sold on the network through retail options, as
> > has
> > always been the case...
> >
> > Dynamic T1 and Integrated T1 were CLEC inventions.
> >
> > VoIP didn't come to the masses from the ILEC's and neither did DSL or
> >> dial-up.
> >
> >
> > CLEC style VoIP is not really all that interesting--in the end, it is
> all
> > to
> > often POTS over IP and leaves out much of what is potentially
> interesting
> > on
> > VoIP.
> >
> > Definitely, without the CLEC competition, Internet access would have
> > evolved
> > in a much different manner.  However, I'm more arguing that the CLECs
> are
> > more or less irrelevant today (from any sort of policy standpoint)--most
> > of
> > the market forces really do come down to telco/cable in the metro areas
> > and
> > wireless in rural markets.  The CLECs were the forerunners in a lot of
> > areas--but, by and large, their era of innovation is long over.
> >
> >>
> >> > I'm not saying that these aren't decent business models, btw, and
> >> > can't make people some dough.  But, national policy is not structured
> >> > around making sure that an extra couple of CLECs or NSPs are cash
> >> > positive...  running the same old tired copper to the same old
> >> > customers does not increase broadband penetration.
> >> National policy! HA!  It's about Innovation and Competition.
> >
> >
> > In which case, the CLECs only have themselves to blame  :)
> >
> > Would we have DSL today if not for Covad/Northpoint/Rhythms? DSL was
> >> invented in Bell Labs in 1965!
> >> RBOC's did not want to cannibalize their $1500 T1 revenue. (Then they
> >> went the exact opposite way).
>

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL on AM Tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

So that just goes around the outside of the cable, like they have on
monitors?  Will that protect the ethernet and power at the same time?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Graham McIntire
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:56 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL on AM Tower

If you're in a pinch, Radio Shack part # 273-105 works.

Mouser and other part suppliers carry them as well for cheaper (not
sure on part #'s though, sorry).

Graham


On 7/6/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any info where to get one of these coils?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:39 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL on AM Tower
>
> The Feritte coil will do the same, but used sheilded cat5..
>
> On 7/6/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking about deploying a Alvarion VL 4 system on one of my towers,
> > and
> > I'd like to use the indoor chassis at the base.  However, the tower is a
> > non-live (i.e. its got an insulated antenna from the tower) at 5000
watts.
> > I have AC power at the top but I'd like to use the IDU/ODU system that
> > Alvarion uses.  Is there a form of shielded cat5 I can use that will
block
> > the RF pickup up the tower?  Normally a cat5 cable will instantly fry a
> > network port unless it's somehow filtered.  AC is easy to filter - a
choke
> > on the top and bottom solves the problem.  But DC power, is what I'm
> > concerned with.  Has anyone addressed an issue like this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant
> www.mikrotikconsulting.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
> 6:39 AM
>
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Alvarion VL on AM Tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Any info where to get one of these coils?

Thanks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dennis Burgess
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 1:39 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Alvarion VL on AM Tower

The Feritte coil will do the same, but used sheilded cat5..

On 7/6/07, Doug Ratcliffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about deploying a Alvarion VL 4 system on one of my towers,
> and
> I'd like to use the indoor chassis at the base.  However, the tower is a
> non-live (i.e. its got an insulated antenna from the tower) at 5000 watts.
> I have AC power at the top but I'd like to use the IDU/ODU system that
> Alvarion uses.  Is there a form of shielded cat5 I can use that will block
> the RF pickup up the tower?  Normally a cat5 cable will instantly fry a
> network port unless it's somehow filtered.  AC is easy to filter - a choke
> on the top and bottom solves the problem.  But DC power, is what I'm
> concerned with.  Has anyone addressed an issue like this?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



-- 
Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant
www.mikrotikconsulting.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Alvarion VL on AM Tower

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'm thinking about deploying a Alvarion VL 4 system on one of my towers, and
I'd like to use the indoor chassis at the base.  However, the tower is a
non-live (i.e. its got an insulated antenna from the tower) at 5000 watts.
I have AC power at the top but I'd like to use the IDU/ODU system that
Alvarion uses.  Is there a form of shielded cat5 I can use that will block
the RF pickup up the tower?  Normally a cat5 cable will instantly fry a
network port unless it's somehow filtered.  AC is easy to filter - a choke
on the top and bottom solves the problem.  But DC power, is what I'm
concerned with.  Has anyone addressed an issue like this?

 

Thanks

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

[Doug Ratcliffe]

So IAX2 is capable of packaging multiple phone calls into 1500 byte ethernet
packets?  I mean, G729 is 300 bytes, if 4 calls plus overhead became one
packet, then it sounds like it is the solution for wireless.  I wonder if an
Asterisk IAX/SIP converter with linux for QOS can be loaded onto a SBC like
a WRAP board?  That would allow me to have both QOS and the ability to use
inexpensive SIP devices on the inside of the network. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:42 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

IAX2 trunking is your savior.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP


But in the same sense, its not as cut and dry as oversubscription.  If it
were, then a 5Mbps/5Mbps ratio could give me 103 calls/Mbit (IAX2/G729) but
in reality, that's 100k PPS per 100 calls, making it unworkable.  But at the
same token, if I decide 15 concurrent calls @ G711 per AP is a usable number
with bandwidth left over, I can manage oversubscription there.

Ultimately, it's the PPS that kills it.  But can systems like Mikrotik for
QOS adequately pack the packets over the wireless so that instead of
transmitting 100 300byte packets, to transmit 20 1500byte packets?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

I have plenty of VOIP customers behind my Trango network.
I'm also getting excellent results using Targeted Technologies proprietary
8K stream VOIP even over my 900Mhz Trango.
Trango has plenty of processing power and pps performance to do VOIP.

The relevent question is, is the oversubscription rate you plan to use on
your network within the capabilty of delivering VOIP?
There are many challenges in delivering quality VOIP over ANY PtMP network
design.

Although prioirtization helps, its not the one save all feature. In PtMP end

users must compete for upload time of the AP, even smart polling systems do
not 100% solve this issue in an oversubscribed network, although helps
significantly. Backend prioiritization is not enough for upload direction,
if it gets choked at the AP before it reaches the prioritization.  If you
are going to do VOIP, you must be more conservative on your oversubscription

rate, and you will be fine.  On the download side it is not a problem as
traffic will reach the bandwdith management/prioiritization before it
reaches the AP.

With that said, Trango had been working on a VOIP prioritized firmware last
year for the 5580, I do not know if it was released or not.
The second issue is whether you are designing your Trango network with
enough RF margin.  Never never use a bare 5580 radio, its pointless.  The
Behive antennas are now shipping for the Trango 5580 also!! They work great,

and bring the signal up to between 15-18 db antenna gain, depending on the
case.  They are great.

Lastly, the newest Trango Firmwares added some support to help with out of
order packets with its ARQ algorithym.  This seemed to help quite a bit to
optimize the VOIP performance when using ARQ.  We only run Trango with ARQ.
To valuable to turn off.  (With the exception of for 5830s).

The other decission you'll need to make is whetehr the over all design of
your network is good enough to be a VOIP provider. You will have to be the
judge of that.  Voice services are demanding, from an uptime SLA point of
view.  To handle this, we are adding more point to point links, more
licensed links, getting rid of backbone bottle necks, etc.

But Trango can handle VOIP just fine, as far as capabilty of a radio.  The
VOIP engineering is up to you, on the router behind and in front of them.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP


Just a quick question to the list, is Trango 5800 series still a viable
option for providing data & VOIP (IAX2) to customers?  I know a few ISPs out
there who use it for that, but there's virtually no data at all on the
Trango site regarding it.  I tried Canopy Adv. a few months back but was
unhappy with the overall range & quality (2.5 miles LOS w/ a reflector, and
8 port ATA, the voice was choppy when I had all 8 calls going).  I'm
transmitting 1-3 miles over a salt water ¾ mile wide river.



I am just looking for some real world experiences out there.



Thanks

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wirel

RE: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But in the same sense, its not as cut and dry as oversubscription.  If it
were, then a 5Mbps/5Mbps ratio could give me 103 calls/Mbit (IAX2/G729) but
in reality, that's 100k PPS per 100 calls, making it unworkable.  But at the
same token, if I decide 15 concurrent calls @ G711 per AP is a usable number
with bandwidth left over, I can manage oversubscription there.  

Ultimately, it's the PPS that kills it.  But can systems like Mikrotik for
QOS adequately pack the packets over the wireless so that instead of
transmitting 100 300byte packets, to transmit 20 1500byte packets?  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:06 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

I have plenty of VOIP customers behind my Trango network.
I'm also getting excellent results using Targeted Technologies proprietary 
8K stream VOIP even over my 900Mhz Trango.
Trango has plenty of processing power and pps performance to do VOIP.

The relevent question is, is the oversubscription rate you plan to use on 
your network within the capabilty of delivering VOIP?
There are many challenges in delivering quality VOIP over ANY PtMP network 
design.

Although prioirtization helps, its not the one save all feature. In PtMP end

users must compete for upload time of the AP, even smart polling systems do 
not 100% solve this issue in an oversubscribed network, although helps 
significantly. Backend prioiritization is not enough for upload direction, 
if it gets choked at the AP before it reaches the prioritization.  If you 
are going to do VOIP, you must be more conservative on your oversubscription

rate, and you will be fine.  On the download side it is not a problem as 
traffic will reach the bandwdith management/prioiritization before it 
reaches the AP.

With that said, Trango had been working on a VOIP prioritized firmware last 
year for the 5580, I do not know if it was released or not.
The second issue is whether you are designing your Trango network with 
enough RF margin.  Never never use a bare 5580 radio, its pointless.  The 
Behive antennas are now shipping for the Trango 5580 also!! They work great,

and bring the signal up to between 15-18 db antenna gain, depending on the 
case.  They are great.

Lastly, the newest Trango Firmwares added some support to help with out of 
order packets with its ARQ algorithym.  This seemed to help quite a bit to 
optimize the VOIP performance when using ARQ.  We only run Trango with ARQ. 
To valuable to turn off.  (With the exception of for 5830s).

The other decission you'll need to make is whetehr the over all design of 
your network is good enough to be a VOIP provider. You will have to be the 
judge of that.  Voice services are demanding, from an uptime SLA point of 
view.  To handle this, we are adding more point to point links, more 
licensed links, getting rid of backbone bottle necks, etc.

But Trango can handle VOIP just fine, as far as capabilty of a radio.  The 
VOIP engineering is up to you, on the router behind and in front of them.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:23 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP


Just a quick question to the list, is Trango 5800 series still a viable
option for providing data & VOIP (IAX2) to customers?  I know a few ISPs out
there who use it for that, but there's virtually no data at all on the
Trango site regarding it.  I tried Canopy Adv. a few months back but was
unhappy with the overall range & quality (2.5 miles LOS w/ a reflector, and
8 port ATA, the voice was choppy when I had all 8 calls going).  I'm
transmitting 1-3 miles over a salt water ¾ mile wide river.



I am just looking for some real world experiences out there.



Thanks

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/865 - Release Date: 6/24/2007 
8:33 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'm not using Canopy at the moment - I had bought a trial kit, ended up
selling it.  I'm using Mikrotik right now.  How are you doing with
concurrent calls per sector?  I'm talking about rolling out a network
_mostly_ dedicated to VOIP, even some customers without data at all.  Some
customers would have as many as 8 to 10 voice lines.  For customers who want
more I would simply use a PtP link for them.   With all VOIP the real
bandwidth cuts to 4.5Mbps on Advantage according to Motorola's white papers.


I'm also concerned with scalability, if I have 6 x 5.7 Canopy APs on a
tower, I need 100' of vertical space to co-locate a 5.2 set.  Most of my
towers aren't even 100' tall.  Trango is not only dual polarity, but dual
band as well.  Nothing suggests you can't put them all in close proximity as
long as they are in different polarizations / bands when close by.  

I wonder if IAX2 trunking would allow more VOIP calls over the same data
bandwidth due to packet size / aggregation?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 3:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

Doug,
I will second Forrest's comments. We have been running VOIP on Canopy 
for several years now will great success. The key is setting the high 
priority queues and DiffServ settings. We also tagged VOIP traffic in a 
high priority DHCP VLAN. We've found that PPPoE encapsulation really 
struggles with VOIP. Are you using PPPoE?

-Eric


Forrest W Christian wrote:
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> I tried Canopy Adv. a few months back but was
>> unhappy with the overall range & quality (2.5 miles LOS w/ a 
>> reflector, and
>> 8 port ATA, the voice was choppy when I had all 8 calls going).  I’m
>> transmitting 1-3 miles over a salt water ¾ mile wide river.
> On the canopy side: Two things:
>
> 1) The secret of making canopy work at extended ranges is buying 
> cyclone AP's from last mile gear. http://www.lastmilegear.com. I 
> regularly get 10+ miles LOS with a reflector at 5.7, and 20+ miles LOS 
> with a reflector at 2.4. Without the cyclone APs you can get roughly 
> half that. The one thing you may have missed is that canopy is 
> multipath sensitive, so moving the SM even 6-8 inches could make the 
> difference between a great link and no link - especially with a big RF 
> mirror like the river you are talking about.
>
> 2) VoIP on canopy works really well when set correctly. Correctly 
> means having the correct (not necessarily the latest) version in the 
> AP and SM, and setting prioritization in both the AP and SM for voice 
> traffic. In addition, you need to watch and make sure that you have 
> bandwidth set correctly and are getting the speeds you expect. If you 
> had a marginal link, there is every possibility that you simply did 
> not have sufficient bandwidth available to you in the upstream
>
> -forrest

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I had actually called Motorola support, we had it configured for 50/50, the
versions were up to date, but I think multipath was the problem.  I was at
ground level, about 25 feet from the shore of the body of water I was
crossing.  I may reconsider Canopy again in the future but I didn't feel
like the factory suggested maximum 26 simultaneous calls was a figure I was
happy with.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forrest W Christian
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango & VOIP

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
> I tried Canopy Adv. a few months back but was
> unhappy with the overall range & quality (2.5 miles LOS w/ a reflector,
and
> 8 port ATA, the voice was choppy when I had all 8 calls going).  I’m
> transmitting 1-3 miles over a salt water ¾ mile wide river.
On the canopy side: Two things:

1) The secret of making canopy work at extended ranges is buying cyclone 
AP's from last mile gear. http://www.lastmilegear.com. I regularly get 
10+ miles LOS with a reflector at 5.7, and 20+ miles LOS with a 
reflector at 2.4. Without the cyclone APs you can get roughly half that. 
The one thing you may have missed is that canopy is multipath sensitive, 
so moving the SM even 6-8 inches could make the difference between a 
great link and no link - especially with a big RF mirror like the river 
you are talking about.

2) VoIP on canopy works really well when set correctly. Correctly means 
having the correct (not necessarily the latest) version in the AP and 
SM, and setting prioritization in both the AP and SM for voice traffic. 
In addition, you need to watch and make sure that you have bandwidth set 
correctly and are getting the speeds you expect. If you had a marginal 
link, there is every possibility that you simply did not have sufficient 
bandwidth available to you in the upstream

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

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Trango & VOIP

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Just a quick question to the list, is Trango 5800 series still a viable
option for providing data & VOIP (IAX2) to customers?  I know a few ISPs out
there who use it for that, but there’s virtually no data at all on the
Trango site regarding it.  I tried Canopy Adv. a few months back but was
unhappy with the overall range & quality (2.5 miles LOS w/ a reflector, and
8 port ATA, the voice was choppy when I had all 8 calls going).  I’m
transmitting 1-3 miles over a salt water ¾ mile wide river.

 

I am just looking for some real world experiences out there.

 

Thanks

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Voicemail to Text/email

[Doug Ratcliffe]

It replaces your carrier's voicemail box seamlessly.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 7:09 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Voicemail to Text/email

I assume you can set call forwarding to Callwave to trigger if your phone is
unanswered after so many rings but before it goes into my normal voicemail
box.  Is there an audio clip that has the actual voice message as well?  It
would be nice to verify confusing texts with the actual voicemail.

Rick Harnish
President
OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.
260-827-2482
Founding Member of WISPA


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 6:51 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Voicemail to Text/email

I signed up for their free beta after reading this - and it works pretty
good.  I set it to text message the voicemail, and it was accurate enough to
understand the voicemail.  Except one little glitch, I said:

This is a test of callwave

And it thought I said:

This is a test is always

But other than that, it seems to be neat.  I hate checking voicemail so this
should alleviate the problem now.

Thanks for the tip.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Justin S. Wilson
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:19 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Voicemail to Text/email

Found this interesting:

http://www.callwave.com/landing/vtxt.asp

 

Vtxt <http://www.callwave.com/landing/vtxt.asp> , a new
service from CallWave that transcribes voicemails and sends them to you as
text messages or e-mails. All you have to do is forward your calls to a
unique phone number supplied by CallWave. Your messages are processed by an
automated speech-recognition engine and sent to you in about four or five
minutes. You can choose to receive the transcriptions as text messages,
e-mails or on the CallWave website.

 

---

Justin S. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Technology Services - WISP Consulting - Tower Services

WEB: http://www.mtin.net

WEB: http://www.metrospan.net

WEB: http://www.findfastinternet.com

 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Voicemail to Text/email

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I signed up for their free beta after reading this - and it works pretty
good.  I set it to text message the voicemail, and it was accurate enough to
understand the voicemail.  Except one little glitch, I said:

This is a test of callwave

And it thought I said:

This is a test is always

But other than that, it seems to be neat.  I hate checking voicemail so this
should alleviate the problem now.

Thanks for the tip.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Justin S. Wilson
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 9:19 AM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: [WISPA] Voicemail to Text/email

Found this interesting:

http://www.callwave.com/landing/vtxt.asp

 

Vtxt  , a new
service from CallWave that transcribes voicemails and sends them to you as
text messages or e-mails. All you have to do is forward your calls to a
unique phone number supplied by CallWave. Your messages are processed by an
automated speech-recognition engine and sent to you in about four or five
minutes. You can choose to receive the transcriptions as text messages,
e-mails or on the CallWave website.

 

---

Justin S. Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Technology Services - WISP Consulting - Tower Services

WEB: http://www.mtin.net

WEB: http://www.metrospan.net

WEB: http://www.findfastinternet.com

 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Call to Vendors.....

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'm not going to get into an enormous amount of detail, but I know a
well-known licensed 2.5ghz NLOS provider, has a maximum NLOS range around
their towers of about 3-4 miles (with indoor units).  That said, the
Sprint-Nextel spectrum is very unlikely to be available on independent
lease, and you would be better off contacting whoever is a non-profit or
educational licensee in your coverage area for spectrum access.  

Also, don't discount 2.3ghz, you may be in a coverage area where WCS is
available.  4.9ghz is okay but I haven't seen a lot of case studies showing
where it penetrates trees compared to 2.5/2.3ghz licensed.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Felix A. Lopez
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 9:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Call to Vendors.

Blair/Chris: I worked with my local WISP whose been in
the business a long time and loved helping them to
build their business.  We installed a combination
mobile mesh/fixed wireless system using equipment from
a major manufacturer and provided the following:

Wireless Mobile mesh network with the 4.9 GHz license
Electric utility metering using the 2.4 GHz (WiFi)
in a Point to Point and Point to MultiPoint. The fleet
manager will eventually have the modem and mobile
server installed in each truck.  The utilility meters
used a 2.4 Ghz chipset but we had to select the best
channel out of 1-13 channels and locked in SSID at
Channel 5 after RF spectum analysis (which really
means we walked around with a sniffer).

There are other "mobile modems" that you can utilize.

I can hardly wait for the new WiMax 802.16(e)/WiFi
802.11(n) Intel Montevina (Centrino) platform to
arrive. But of course that means you need a 2.5 GHz
license. But as one reader posted I think Sprint may
be eager to work with someone on a lease basis to
build the business case.

I hesitate to mention any manufacturers for fairness.
With that being said IMHO it can be designed,
commissioned and installed with good RF Planning. 

I prefer and my field advice is to identify and work 
through a VAR, channel partner or disributor type VAR
who can give you personalized service.  Some WISP may
have that capability.  I built my local WISP into a
solutions provider and certified on Mesh.

F.Lopez
Wireless Practioneer








--- chris cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Im interested in vendor response on this as well
> 
> chris cooper
> intelliwave
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Blair Davis
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:04 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Call to Vendors.
> 
> 
> This is an invitation to Vendors to contact me if
> they have equipment
> that could meet my needs...
> 
> I have been contacted by government unit that wishes
> to deploy a mobile,
> high speed data network in their vehicles.
> 
> The area of operation is tree infested.  The mobile
> units will never be
> more than 7 miles from a tower with a base station. 
> LoS is NOT assured
> from the mobile unit to the base.  The mobile units
> must switch base
> stations as needed with no user intervention.
> 
> Use of 2.4GHz band is not acceptable.
> 
> Min data rates are 256Kbit up by 1Mbit down.
> 
> I'm open to any technology that will work and to any
> vendor.  Licensed
> or unlicensed gear would be acceptable.
> 
> Contact me by e-mail or my cell below.  Calling late
> is fine.  I'm up
> late anyway!
> 
> --
> Blair Davis
> West Michigan Wireless ISP
> 
> Cell 269-650-5749
> 
> --
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.1/805 -
> Release Date: 5/15/2007
> 10:47 AM
> 
> 
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 



   


Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&c
s=bz 
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.14/845 - Release Date: 6/12/2007
6:39 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Copper Plant

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I think what we're going to need to see in the wireless industry, very soon,
is affordable medium range (1.5 miles or less) gigabit speed backhauls.  I
feel that in an urban environment (city, etc) that we could build
SONET-style wireless gigabit rings around these areas.  FSO / 60ghz type
equipment, very little interference, etc.  But the problem with this is - to
put a pair of these units up at the average multi-story building is not
effective cost-wise.  Each pair costs $20k+, and I know manufacturers are
holding back on lowering the price because they know how much actual fiber
costs to bury 1 mile and the time it actually takes.  

I have enough high-rise customers I could build a backhaul ring network in
my area, and offer unbelievable speeds.  From those buildings, wireless
pico-cells could offer Wi-Max speeds to 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile.  Or secondary
slower FSO links could be used for nearby customers.  Unlicensed 2.4/5.8
backhauls could also be used from these points.

But the cost would be astronomical right now.  10 or 20 of these units could
easily cost more than a Ferrari.  And would it have an ROI measured in 10+
years...



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Clint Ricker
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Copper Plant

Not even close.  The telco's aren't stupid enough to pay billions of dollars
($23 billion expected total cost for Verizon's FTTH project) simply to close
off line sharing requirements.

Total revenue for "other providers of local service" nationwide (not just
Verizon territory) was a total of $22 billion last year.  Peter, you may
have more exact stats, this is pulling from the FCC Annual
Telecommunications revenue report.  Considering this includes a lot of stuff
that doesn't fall under CLEC status, this isn't enough to really justify
Verizon and AT&T's move to fiber.

I'm not arguing that line sharing isn't an annoyance.  But, the reality is
that it is simply an annoyance.  Most of the players who really "count" in
terms of major threats to revenue either are moving to fiber or fiber/coax
hybrid because we are no longer in the 1990s.  5Mb/s was great technology in
1998.  We are in 2007, and by the end of the decade most of the major cable
companies will be pushing DOCSIS 3 with 50-100Mb/s (with much higher
theoretical capacity).

The telcos have their backs up against the wall in a lot of respects.  The
cable companies are rolling out voice, which is a piece of cake these days
(well, compared to the challenge of deploying video services, voice is a
piece of cake) and are getting their act together in a big way about going
after the business market.  The telcos are on an old copper network which
simply can't handle much data (max even for the next generation is ADSL2 is
25Mb/s down, 5 up +-).  The simple reality is that copper pairs can't handle
much data.  The cable companies don't really have that liability--a coax
plant can push about 50Gb/s (albeit "broadcast" rather than point to point)
for residential and are doing metro-ethernet stuff as well on the business
side.  Smart CLECs that target business customers are dropping fiber into
multi-tenant buildings and grabbing up lucritive business customers that
way.  Sticking with copper simply means that the telco's don't have the
technical basis to compete.   Plain and simple.

The market is evolving.  Sure, telcos don't like line sharing.  However,
CLECs buying what is/will be legacy connections (T1s, POTS, etc...) are the
least of the ILECs worries these days.  They are rolling out fiber because
the technology is advancing to the point that it is increasingly a
necessitity to offer the services neccessary to gain and keep customers on
that level.

Now, that's only about 1/3 of the story :).  My comments above are mainly
centered around the urban markets.  You could reasonably make the argument
that the copper plant will be dead in major metropolitan areas by 2013, and
I might even believe it (although I doubt it will be quite that quick from
AT&T side, but not too far off).  Rural markets will remain on copper for a
_long_ time.  If I'm not mistaken, this is the market that most of you on
the list (although not in terms of subscribers) operate in.  Verizon is
rolling out FTTH across its market, sure.  Don't forget that Verizon also
spun off much of its rural market for the simple reason that rural is less
profitable and fiber is not really profitable for rural markets (for the
major ILECs--there are some people out there making good money at fiber in
rural areas).  Many of these areas are still running copper between central
offices, if that is any indication.

In the end, I guess it doesn't really matter "why" the market is moving away
from copper into fiber--it is (although not really in rural).   Still, I
think you're flattering yourself and the CLECs a little too much if you
think that the ILECs are doing 

[WISPA] ISP Billing w/ multiple "district" taxes

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We are in the process of deploying some services which are subject to
communication taxes (local, county, state, USF) by zip-code (and some
plus-4) that vary based on a state-supplied table.  I don't care if it reads
the table, but rather I need to have a per-user or per-area tax-base setup
that I can put into each user, and possible importing of CDR records from an
external source.

 

Also, each tax area needs a monthly report of taxes collected to send to the
state.

 

Thanks

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Motherboards and power supplies are tested independent of a case - if it's
in a case, they test it with the all covers removed.  Section 15.32(a).

We may still have an issue, however.  Routerboards are not typical "personal
computers" due to lack of keyboard, video, etc.  So Routerboards and similar
SBCs may never make it as a personal computer.  But VIA boards, and any
NanoITX with video, keyboard, mouse DOES meet the definition of a personal
computer.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forrest W. Christian
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:52 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC

Doug Ratcliffe wrote:

>It seems to me like having Ubiquiti certified with various WISP antennas
>would be far cheaper than certifying each combination of Routerboard /
>Wireless Card / Case / Antenna combination.
>
That would be correct.  If I understand the regs correctly, what you 
could do is verify the routerboard (and probably the cases) emission 
limits as a computing device, and then certify the Ubiquiti card with 
antennas.  You would also have to do the computing device test on the 
ubiquity card so that it can be integrated into a routerboard enclosure.

-forrest
-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/836 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
1:10 PM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC

[Doug Ratcliffe]

It seems to me like having Ubiquiti certified with various WISP antennas
would be far cheaper than certifying each combination of Routerboard /
Wireless Card / Case / Antenna combination.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Forrest W. Christian
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:13 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Question posed to the FCC

Mike Hammett wrote:

> The XR5 is certified with a 31.4 dbi antenna.  Nothing in the FCC 
> certification says what type of antenna.  Someone I spoke with 
> familiar with the certification process said the type doesn't matter, 
> only maximum (perhaps minimum too, I can't remember) gains. 

Actually it appears to have been tested with the following two antennas:*

*Hyperlinktech, Dipole, HG2403RD-RSF, 3dbi
Radio waves, Parabolic, SP1.5(2/3)-5.8, 31.4dBi.

The ceritificate at the FCC is for 5.7 only.  Not sure what happened to 
the 2.4 grant.

So it looks like you can use the XR5 in 5.7 with the radiowaves 
antenna.  However, any other antennas would be illegal until such time 
as Ubiquiti specifies in writing that the additional antennas are legal 
to use, with specific model numbers.   I would, however, be skeptical of 
anything but a Parabolic of some sort, since the FCC requires the 
certification testing be done for each antenna "type" - where type is 
not neccessarily just "parabolic", but things like "parabolic with 
dipole feed, DC open, and a specific in and out of band gain pattern".   
I would expect there to be no problem with Ubiquiti saying that the 
lower gain radiowaves 5.8ghz parabolic antennas are ok,  but anything 
else may require additional testing.

-forrest
-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/836 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
1:10 PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But the base product, the "computer" does not start life as an intentional
radiator.  So at what point does a FCC certified computer become an
intentional radiator as a whole?  

When you add a wireless card?  That would land Dell, HP and Compaq in a load
of trouble.  But alas, is a FCC certified Netgear card, any different than
an FCC certified Ubiquiti card when used with the certified antennas?

I'm NOT talking about marketing these as products as a vendor, I'm talking
about USING these computers, with wireless cards installed in them after the
sale.

I don't see how page 78 and on reference a computer becoming an intentional
radiator?  At the beginning of the day, you have a motherboard and power
supply, which become a "Personal Computer".  At the end of the day, you add
a wireless card and antenna which makes it what then?  

Calling a Cisco Aironet a PC or vice versa doesn't make sense.  Cisco
Aironet=Intentional Radiator, PC=Unintentional Radiator.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 7:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Sam,

Since some here feel I have no credibility because I no longer run a 
WISP I will let you decide from this information provided.

Starting on page 78 of the following link should explain why the 
wireless devices in question cannot be certified as computers.
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-2-16-06.pdf

Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Sam Tetherow wrote:
> I think the question that really hasn't been answered is if a RB can 
> be certified class B and then use a certified radio/antenna combo as 
> is allowed with a PC/laptop.
> And you are right that then FCC makes the rules.  What is not clear is 
> that Dawn's (and others) position that the component rules can not 
> apply to an RB or other SBC.  The only people that can clarify this is 
> the FCC.
>
> As for FCC certification in general, I think there are two major 
> factors that come into play with uncertified gear.  There are several 
> that deployed  the equipment under the false impression that it was 
> legal because they complied with the EIRP rules (and many still 
> persist in this belief).
> The other is the simple fact that no one has been fined, to my 
> knowledge, for using uncertified gear.  There have been instances of 
> people that have been fined for using over EIRP and unauthorized use 
> of licensed bands.
>
> If the FCC has not fined for the behavior yet and has made unofficial 
> statements to the effect that they are more worried about EIRP and 
> 477, it comes as no surprise that people will not follow the law.  As 
> you pointed out most people regularly break the speed limit, which is 
> a law with an associated fine but they continue to do so because the 
> fine is not large enough or incurred often enough to make it an 
> effective deterrent.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> This has become a ridiculous thread. Dawn's customer experience is 
>> irrelevant in this case. Plenty of operators who have lots of 
>> customers (including me) understand and agree with the position 
>> presented. Don't kill the messenger! The FCC makes the rules; not 
>> Dawn or me or any of the other folks who have made accurate 
>> statements regarding certification. Use of certified equipment is 
>> required by law. Many people break laws for a variety of reasons, but 
>> that doesn't change the law. For example, everyday I drive over the 
>> speed limit and occasionally I am fined for doing so.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>

-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/836 - Release Date: 6/6/2007
1:10 PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Wow.  Do you have access to rooftops and/or light poles?

Mikrotik w/ mesh allows lots of flexibility in a power-only situation.  I
use it all the time.  You may need a big backhaul mesh arrangement.

Other options include Meraki Mesh, a good value @ only $99/outdoor,
$49/indoor, and a wall-adapter style plug-in for $79 (nice little unit).
Those need an ethernet / wireless backhaul every 3 hops, but work good.  I
like their management system included free, I just set and forget, it'll
email me if a node goes down.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

oh, I should mention that this is a 300 x 1400 yard area...  22 city blocks.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot construction


When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole

area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a 
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards 
with output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of 
multiple APs with rubber duckies?

My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the 
laptops, allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner 
band.  My thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive 
sensitivity and cleaner reception than other cards, the increased power 
output would be negated by a lowering of the transmit power to not step on 
my own feet, crowd the spectrum, overload close receivers, etc.

I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and 
have more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal 
due to building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a smaller 
AP with a ducky.


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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43
PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I have successfully used a pair of SR2s, 9db 120 degree sectors on either
side of a "middle" hallway hotel (where it's narrow and long, with a hallway
in the middle), up to 8 stories tall from the parking lot and the pool deck.

For a longer hotel, say a 240 room, 7 story hotel (lower 2 floors, no rooms,
so it's really about 50 rooms per floor), I needed 2 per side to cover all
the rooms, for a total of 4 units.

I've found these work best aimed at the unit's windows.  And yes, the extra
gain plus good RX sensitivity on SR2's.  Upper floors become the hardest
spots - at 50 feet from the building at ground level, on an 8' pole, you're
going through a lot of walls and floors on the 8th floor.  If you had other
buildings, you could put them on the rooftops firing into the buildings.

I just use the look test - if you can see the window from the point you're
at, you're safe.  If not, consider more APs - or for me, since they're
repeaters, I use a omni-broadcast on the roof, which feeds the ground units,
and also provides a boost of signal on the upper units.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:11 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Hotspot construction

When building a hotspot type environment, power is needed to cover the whole
area.  Obviously you have no control over the laptop's abilities.  Does a
sectorized AP (say 17 dbi 90* sectors) with low power (perhaps XR2 cards
with output power turned down) match or best the coverage abilities of
multiple APs with rubber duckies?

My thought is that the increased gain of the sectors helps pull in the
laptops, allowing for someone to deploy less APs, resulting in a cleaner
band.  My thought on the XR2s in that they have increased receive
sensitivity and cleaner reception than other cards, the increased power
output would be negated by a lowering of the transmit power to not step on
my own feet, crowd the spectrum, overload close receivers, etc.

I would think to mount on building roofs, with downtilt on the sectors and
have more than 1 sector cover areas that are likely to have reduced signal
due to building density and foliage.  Tough areas could just have a smaller
AP with a ducky.


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

-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43
PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Still, Mikrotik could offer a FCC-only license code - or make all license
codes FCC only, and for no charge offer an additional world license
(included free with all non-US orders).

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 1:56 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Wasn't there an ISP in Puerto Rico that was fined because they had set their
gear (Aperto I think) to a higher power than they should have?  The
manufacturer's manual clearly stated it was up to the user to follow the
rules and regulations of the country the gear is deployed.

So, if this is the case how did this gear get FCC certified if the end user
was able to make these changes?

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

This "FCC country-code-lock-down" question is interesting.

Doing a quick "google" I found this:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgaxa.htm
Don't know how up-to-date those lists are, as it was posted in 2003.
Clearly some countries (e.g. Japan) have channels that are (or were in 2003)
not legal in USA.
And an interesting page here:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/wireless/airo1200/accsspts/a
p120scg/bkscgch3.htm
"Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point."
Clearly implies the user could set a "wrong" country and use their
frequencies.
And
"Note   Government regulations define the highest allowable power level for
radio devices. This setting must conform to established standards for the
country in which you use the access point. "
I have to say I've never used the above product myself.

Here, I have a business-grade Netgear AP (bought in UK) that has a
country-list which allows the same, i.e. you can select any country.  I'd
assume they ship the same firmware in USA, as you can re-flash the device
for upgrade using a common code set, i.e. there is no US-specific software
version that I can see.  
Again, the software says on the config screen "It is illegal to use this
device in any location outside of the regulatory domain. The radio for 11a
interface is default to off, you have to select a correct country to turn on
the radio."

So I don't know the answer here, i.e. I'd have assumed these devices (Cisco
and Netgear) adhere to the rules.  These devices appear not to have a
"locked" country ID.  Interesting debate- look forward to hearing more

Regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Mike Hammett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 June 2007 16:25
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

I have no means of testing that.  However, if the hardware can't do it, why
does the software by the same manufacturer of this FCC certified device have
the option of setting non-FCC?

I've read every message up to this one and don't recall anything that would
change what I said.  That's not to say it wasn't said, I just don't remember
it.  :-p


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


- Original Message -
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


> One or two people have asked this question also. I asked them to test and 
> see if their equipment actually did transmit outside the U.S. band. So 
> far, I've received no confirmation that outside-the-band transmissions 
> were actually taking place. If you have equipment that you believe will 
> transmit outside the US band, please test it yourself and report back. 
> Also, to increase your understanding and make this discussion more 
> accurate and valuable, please read my recent posts that provide my more 
> technical opinions of the definition of "outside the band" and "non-FCC 
> frequencies".
>
> jack
>
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> Don't a whole slew of FCC certified wireless equipment for standard 
>> PC\laptop use allow you to pick USA, Japan, Europe, etc?  Picking a 
>> different country allows you to use different, non-FCC frequencies.
>>
>> Why are they allowed if the user cannot select something outside of FCC 
>> permission?
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:00 AM
>> Subject: Not Babble: WAS Re: [WISPA] MT Babble
>>
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Just for info -
>>>
>>> The question of being required to use a software version that denied 
>>> operation on non-US frequenc

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Is that really a necessary question, in determining whether this falls under
a DoC computer assembly or a dedicated wireless access point?  

That's the question.  It's a concept, in that having a declaration of
conformity certified computer with a certified wireless PCI/miniPCI card and
a non-standard OS is no longer a computer but a dedicated access point.  Are
we required to certify operating systems when using wireless?  This also
affects SBC-based systems such a Linksys wireless router.  If hardware is
certified exclusively, there's no regulation that I can find that says that
changing operating system, drivers, etc, is cause to lose hardware
certification.

That's the clarification we need to know.  I've been building computers
since 1991, and I remember this back in 96 when it was a huge win for us
small computer builders to be able to be free of FCC whole system
certification.  This clarification will allow Mikrotik to certify their
boards under much less strict Part 15 Class B rules (i.e. a power-on style
emissions test, rather than a software/transmitter test).


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:47 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

Dawn,

Just how many wisp customers did you have in your short career as a wisp?

Why is it that some people who don't actually participate in running a 
wireless service want to come in and try to tell us how to run our wisps?



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I have suggested a FDD-style system like this on the MT forums before.  My
thoughts were to have a full-protocol scheme like NStreme dual but tailored
for PTMP.   HOWEVER, utilizing some bridge / mangle / filter tricks I have
done FDD schemes without NStreme-dual, making re-use and hidden node a very
small issue and performance much better on FDX traffic.  CIR/MIR is easier
to manage - and oversubscription becomes a smaller issue.  

If I could find some decent CPE dual-polarity antennas, I would do this in a
heartbeat.  I have a tower to re-do, and I may go this route if it works
well in the lab.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:38 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble

On a volume of 1, I can get a 5 GHz CPE for $185.  IIRC, 100 unit quantities

were $140.  I can configure 2 CPE for a PtP.  I can have an AP that has 4 
radios for about $800, plus cables and antenna.

I can configure 5, 10, 20, or 40 MHz per radio, two radios are required for 
full duplex operation.  The 70+ megabits is with 40 MHz.  With the full 
duplex operation I can configure the same frequency for all transmitting on 
a given tower, allowing for major frequency reuse.  I agree that this route 
isn't as spectrally efficient as Orthogon or...  I forget the new guys... 
Exalt?  The XR5 radio has 23 dbm at 54 meg and 28 dbm at 6 meg.  It also 
ranges from -74 to -94 for receive sensitivity.  That radio has been 
certified with a 31.4 db antenna.

I haven't tried, but I'd imagine putting a similar channel size would result

in a similar number of collocated APs, though I don't know.  MT is different

than generic 802.11 in that it has the N-Streme protocol, solving many (if 
not all) problems with using 802.11 in WISP applications as well as allowing

for a much higher throughput.  Star-OS has a similar feature.  Everything 
else 802.11 is plain vanilla.

I have nothing wrong with every radio being MT.  You can use 900, 2.4, and 5

GHz (not 5.4) with any antenna (as long as the gain is under the certified 
gain for that radio), allowing for any combination you could want.  The 
exceptions to this that I know of are Orthogon's spatial diversity and any 
sort of MIMO, beam steering, etc.  You can put as many cards as you want on 
a given PC based Mikrotik system.

I am unsure of the innerworkings of the QoS.  I do know that I can 
prioritize what goes into and out of each interface independent of any other

interface.

I would imagine that if it was certified with 32 radios, you could use 1 
radio and be fine, though I am not fully aware of those specifics.  I would 
assume that you could have both setups certified, and could then add the 
second radio to the first, making it the second certified system.

Star-OS is the only system that I know of that has anywhere near the feature

set of Mikrotik.  What features is it missing?  They could already be 
incorporated or slated for 3.0, which is in beta as we speak.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] MT Babble


> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> Speed, features, reduced points of failure, price.
>>
>> If I can setup two complete and separate MT systems for less than the 
>> other guys can...  Heck, could probably even setup a wireless ring using 
>> different bands for each link for less than the other guys.  Even the 
>> greatest gear will lose out to basic redundancy.
>>
> Can you give me some idea what the cost is? Last time I looked the cost of

> MT was similar to other vendors.
>> Speed.  I can setup a full duplex link that can do in excess of 70 
>> megabits with a single set of gear.  I can increase that in 70 megabit 
>> increments as tower space (for additional antenna) and available spectrum

>> allow, all having a single Ethernet cable handoff.
>>
> What kind of channel space, receive sensitivity, and power output do you 
> have in such a configuration?
>> With proper RF engineering, I can have sectors deployed that can provide 
>> 10 megs plus to each user.  When your system can do 70 megs plus, you can

>> fit a lot more customers with higher speeds.  He who can scale wins.  The

>> more bigger pipes you sell, the cheaper your bandwidth becomes.  When 
>> your bandwidth is cheaper, not only can you pass this along to your 
>> customer, but you can also profit more.  I can have multiple customers on

>> a sector that each can consume more bandwidth than a Canopy AP could only

>> dream of supplying.
>>
> Canopy certainly has the least amount of available bandwidth among the 
> available systems. However, when it comes to scale, I haven't seen a 
> single vendor who could colocate more APs at one location than Canopy. In 
> this case though, I would think comparing MT to another 8

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Doug Ratcliffe]

One correction, I had originally specified the 1996 order regarding this,
but further research lead me to the full updated part 15.  So disregard the
1996 rule amendment reference below, it was a referring to a 1996 order that
amended part 15.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 8:58 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications.  If Mikrotik
would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards
and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no
peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the
manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall under
the 1996 FCC order listed below.  If we used VIA, or any number of already
modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order.  

Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power
supplies.  So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless
card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified for use
with that wireless card.  How is that not FCC legal?

It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with:

Trade NameModel Number
FCC Assembled from 
   Tested Components
(Complete System Not Tested)

I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 2400 in
my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases.  

Part 15 as of May 4, 2007:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf

Listed on these pages:
Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, home-build
and kit computers.
Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators.

See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals:  Declaration
of Conformity.
Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in
accordance with one of the following methods

And of course, on page 86 the very vague "modular transmitter" section
regarding "unique" antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe
Ubiquity has cards like this).

I did a search in this document for the following words:
"operating system" 0 results.
"software" 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating systems.

Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks
suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux.  Not a
modular transmitter device like an AP.  I can put a CD in my home computer
and load Mikrotik on it.  So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not
considered a PC?

Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up right from
the FCC site.



-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43
PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] MT Babble

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I found the FCC document regarding the modular certifications.  If Mikrotik
would submit (or someone submitted on their behalf, for them) their boards
and representative power supplies, for FCC testing, and passed (no
peripheral cards, they are SEPARATELY tested for FCC compliance by the
manufacturer, it's in this document), they would become PCs and fall under
the 1996 FCC order listed below.  If we used VIA, or any number of already
modular certified FCC motherboards, it would all fall under this order.  

Cases are not FCC certified only motherboards, peripherals and power
supplies.  So take a motherboard, power supply and a peripheral wireless
card, put it into a NEMA enclosure, add an antenna that's certified for use
with that wireless card.  How is that not FCC legal?

It mentions an FCC DoC sticker some of us may be familiar with:

Trade NameModel Number
FCC Assembled from 
   Tested Components
(Complete System Not Tested)

I have a Compaq Presario 5100NX, Dell Dimension 8100 and Dimension 2400 in
my repair department right now, NO FCC stickers on the cases.  

Part 15 as of May 4, 2007:
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/rules/part15/part15-5-4-07.pdf

Listed on these pages:
Page 12-15: Regarding labelling for Declaration of Conformity, home-build
and kit computers.
Page 28 - Section 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators.

See type of device, class B personal computers and peripherals:  Declaration
of Conformity.
Page 29 subsections C and D - Personal Computers shall be authorized in
accordance with one of the following methods

And of course, on page 86 the very vague "modular transmitter" section
regarding "unique" antenna connectors, shielded RF components (I believe
Ubiquity has cards like this).

I did a search in this document for the following words:
"operating system" 0 results.
"software" 2 results - neither of which have to do with operating systems.

Maybe this will be dismissed as a bad interpretation, but Mikrotik looks
suspiciously like a PC operating system, much like Windows or Linux.  Not a
modular transmitter device like an AP.  I can put a CD in my home computer
and load Mikrotik on it.  So how is the device a Mikrotik OS runs on not
considered a PC?

Just some food for thought; with the information that backs it up right from
the FCC site.



-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Actually, they have implemented a CSMA/CA bypass on their new 3.0 beta
versions, using their NStreme Polling protocol.

GPS Sync has been very high up on their list, however, the issue at the
moment is that conventional serial GPS units lack the necessary timing
precision for anything other than raw timesync.  

That said, I can't see why they couldn't sync based on ethernet broadcast
packets (lets say, the master radio sends a signal to the slave radios to
transmit).  That would only work on a per-tower basis, but a master GPS sync
could sync up on a lesser precision basis, more often, allowing all the
towers to stay fairly in sync. 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Michael J. Erskine
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 3:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

All of that said, do you know of a TDM radio card that comes in a format 
which can be installed in a MT router?  For that matter do you know of a 
TDM radio which comes as any kind of card even PCI?  There really is no 
point to GPS sync on a CSMA/CA based system such as 802.11x.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Reminder: 2.4 is about 50mhz too, and even though it's pretty trashed most
of us can still use it to some degree.  Now think about 2.4 with 1% of the
garbage transmissions.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 10:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

How difficult is it to engineer sectors with greater isolation?  With only 
50 MHz, we're going to have to become champions of spectrum reuse.


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


- Original Message - 
From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Principal WISPA Member List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..


> Getting closer to a 3650 reality!
> Marlon
> (509) 982-2181   (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) 
> Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 
> 1999!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dan Lubar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "FCC Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:54 AM
> Subject: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
>
>
>> Greetings everyone..
>>
>> I wanted to make everyone aware of today's published response from the
>> FCC regarding the reconsideration of its 3650 NPRM..
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-99A1.pdf
>>
>> Note that the petitions for reconsideration of this rule making have
>> been denied and 3650 band usage in the United States is now one step
>> closer.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Dan Lubar
>> RelayServices
>> ___
>> FCC mailing list
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/fcc
>>
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 6/4/2007 6:43
PM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..thelawyerswin most

[Doug Ratcliffe]

.2628
>c: 760.580.0080
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>Behalf Of Jack Unger
>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:43 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
>
>
>As I read it, the FCC says that contention-based protocols that are 
>capable of detecting signals that are using *both* *similar* and 
>*non-similar* protocols (and thereby deferring transmission to avoid 
>generating interference) can be legally used over the entire 50 MHz
band
>
>but protocols that are capable of detecting *only similar protocols* or

>that are *scheduling-based *must be used only in the bottom 25 MHz. 
>Other things being equal, this means that the bottom 25 MHz will be 
>noisier (more dissimilar non-CSMA protocols allowed) and the top 25 MHz

>will be quieter. The examples the FCC used (I know it seems funny or 
>maybe ironic, depending on your point of view) is that WiMAX is limited

>to the bottom 25 MHz because it uses a scheduling protocol which does 
>not listen for transmissions that use other protocols before it (WiMAX)

>transmits. In comparison, Wi-Fi-like protocols *do* listen before 
>transmitting and are capable of detecting the presence of other 
>(non-Wi-Fi) protocol transmissions and deferring their own transmission

>until the channel is quiet. Wi-Fi-like protocols therefore *can be*
used
>
>across the entire 50 MHz band.
>
>It looks like only certified products will be allowed. It seems to me 
>that Mikrotik or other software (with proper channel/power restrictions

>built in) combined with a Ubiquiti 3.6 GHz card could serve as the
basis
>
>for a line of reasonably-priced full-band WISP equipment. If CSMA is 
>disabled then only the bottom half of the band will be usable and
likely
>
>only if the Point Coordination Function (PCF) is enabled for the entire

>system.
>
>jack
>
>
>Patrick Leary wrote:
>  
>
>>I would hope any WISP worth serious about its being a business (versus
>>
>>
>a
>  
>
>>hobby) should be at least roughly familiar with the issue and the fact
>>that a decision was being re-evaluated. 
>>
>>At my read, it looks like ALL listen-before-talk type BWA products
>>
>>
>will
>  
>
>>be certifiable under the rule for use in all 50 MHz. But -- and yee
>>
>>
>haw
>  
>
>>for this -- no license is provided WITHOUT the operator entering the
>>
>>
>FCC
>  
>
>>equipment authorization number for the intended product. This means
>>
>>
>this
>  
>
>>band will be largely free from illegal systems -- if a vendor wants to
>>play in the space, they have to do the minimal work required to make
>>themselves legal to do so. All should rejoice at this.
>>
>>Patrick Leary
>>AVP WISP Markets
>>Alvarion, Inc.
>>o: 650.314.2628
>>c: 760.580.0080
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>On
>  
>
>>Behalf Of Doug Ratcliffe
>>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:09 PM
>>To: 'WISPA General List'
>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
>>
>>I just hope systems like Mikrotik w/ Ubiquiti SR3s/ XR3s(eventually)
>>
>>
>can
>  
>
>>be
>>made certified under 3650.  That will keep the equipment low priced
>>
>>
>AND
>  
>
>>able
>>to use the whole band.  And in CSMA disable mode, only the lower half
>>
>>
>of
>  
>
>>the
>>band.
>>
>>I think  that in major cities 3650 coordination may become an eventual
>>issue
>>if the major carriers jump on this (like cell, Clearwire, etc).  But
>>most
>>rural and small WISPs will never even hear about this band for a long
>>time,
>>keeping it open for those who know a lot longer.  
>>
>>Less likely will it be that those WISPs will even know what to file,
>>seeing
>>as they probably didn't even file a 477 or CALEA form.
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>On
>  
>
>>Behalf Of Patrick Leary
>>Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:57 PM
>>To: WISPA General List; FCC Discussion
>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..
>>
>>Very interesting clarifications that will be immediately beneficial to
>>WISPs and others looking to deploy in the band. The big wild card and
>>open question in my vi

RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I just hope systems like Mikrotik w/ Ubiquiti SR3s/ XR3s(eventually) can be
made certified under 3650.  That will keep the equipment low priced AND able
to use the whole band.  And in CSMA disable mode, only the lower half of the
band.

I think  that in major cities 3650 coordination may become an eventual issue
if the major carriers jump on this (like cell, Clearwire, etc).  But most
rural and small WISPs will never even hear about this band for a long time,
keeping it open for those who know a lot longer.  

Less likely will it be that those WISPs will even know what to file, seeing
as they probably didn't even file a 477 or CALEA form.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Leary
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 3:57 PM
To: WISPA General List; FCC Discussion
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

Very interesting clarifications that will be immediately beneficial to
WISPs and others looking to deploy in the band. The big wild card and
open question in my view is the cooperation requirement. The Commission
extensively uses the language about being "required" to cooperate, but
does not fully define what that means and to what extent or any
consequences of not doing so. Does it mean the existing operator MUST
re-work an existing channel plan to accommodate every new entry? This is
one of many open and important questions. And these questions only
become more acute in the lower 25 MHz restricted portion. That rule
clearly allows any TDD product that can sync with any other like
operator, i.e. Canopy, .16e WiMAX, and any number of other TDD products.
But the rule still requires these distinct entities to "cooperate" on
some level even though there is no way for them to cooperate via gear
short of channel isolation, which is not mandated. 

So that part of the rule will be an enforcement AND legal mess over
time.

All that said, I am glad to see it finally out and happy that the FCC
put some effort into the clarification.

Patrick Leary
AVP WISP Markets
Alvarion, Inc.
o: 650.314.2628
c: 760.580.0080
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:21 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org; FCC Discussion
Subject: [WISPA] Re: [WISPA FCC] FCC 3650 band response today..

Only FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein added comments to the 3650 band

Memorandum Opinion and Order published today.
He said:


___

*"A little over two years ago, I was very pleased to support the 
Commission's innovative
decision to make the spectrum in the 3650-3700 MHz (3650 MHz) band 
available on a licensed,
but non-exclusive, basis. In many respects, this was a bold statement. 
We wanted to take
advantage of the success of the WiFi movement and take it to another 
level. We wanted to find
the right balance between a licensing model for traditional, area-wide 
mobile systems and a
model for unlicensed, consumer-based services. Our licensing regime for 
the 3650 MHz band
will serve as a wireless highway between small towns and the big city - 
it will facilitate the
delivery of broadband to all corners of the country by serving a 
different user group, one that
often is driven by more localized, community based needs.

Since our initial decision, I have talked often about the public 
interest benefits of the new
licensing rules for the 3650 MHz band. I have spoken with many 
supporters of our decision, and
with those who believe the band would be better used on an exclusive 
basis. But I remain
convinced the hybrid licensing approach that we first adopted for the 
3650 MHz band is the
correct one, and I enthusiastically support our reconsideration order
today.

During my time at the Commission, I have pushed for flexible licensing 
approaches that
make it easier for community-based providers to get access to wireless 
broadband opportunities,
and the rules we affirm for the 3650 MHz band should help make wireless 
broadband services
available to a large number of new users. Today, we uphold our earlier 
decision to put in place a
regime that doesn't rely on first in time and provides equal access to 
all. I have heard from
representatives of the Community Wireless Network movement about our 
3650 MHz licensing
rules, and they are thrilled with the hybrid approach and the positive 
impact it will have on their
efforts to deploy broadband networks in underserved communities around 
the country.

So, once again, I wholeheartedly support our 3650 MHz licensing 
decision. Of course,
only time will tell if this unique approach will result in increased use

of this spectrum band. But
I think that given the success of unlicensed wireless networks, we are 
on the right track, and our
creative spectrum management approach is well justified.
*___

RE: [WISPA] Motorola BPL

[Doug Ratcliffe]

This is not my original experience, but a presenter at the Mikrotik User
Meeting mentioned that a whole-building Motorola's powerline solution is
more expensive per unit than wiring Cat5.  And both are more expensive than
say using a wireless mesh network.  Both takes much less time to install
than cat5, and is easier to hook up one unit at a time.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 9:51 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Motorola BPL

Anyone have experience with Motorola BPL deployed with Canopy? The 
information from Motorola would have us believe that the technology is 
relatively cheap and easy to deploy. Is it?

In our case, we are increasingly finding projects where we backhaul a 
building and then need to put in an Ethernet network to service multiple 
tenants. If we would replace the Ethernet network with BPL it may prove 
easier to deploy, cheaper, and most importantly better to manage since 
each tenant would have an integrated CPE as opposed to just a port on a 
switch.

-Matt
-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 6/3/2007
12:47 PM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

RE: [WISPA] Fw: CALEA RouterOS Support and MUM

[Doug Ratcliffe]

The press release I reposted mentions 2.9.xx and 3.0.

"> The following CALEA features will be included in the next version of both
RouterOS 2.9.XX and 3.X beta."

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Butch Evans
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: CALEA RouterOS Support and MUM

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Mike Hammett wrote:

>Meaning 2.9.44?

Meaning 3.0

>Does anyone know if what MT's doing meets the technical 
>requirements of CALEA? I know there's still staffing and contact 
>issues.

The solution will meet the technical requirements.

-- 
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html
-- 
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 Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.7/816 - Release Date: 5/23/2007
3:59 PM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] QB Integration Survey

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'm working with a Quickbooks module developer on some new stuff, and doing
some brainstorming today, I wanted to get a feel for whether these modules
would be good for the (W)ISP industry if we developed them:

* Module for ISP-style QB recurring billing
* QB Customer payment web portal interface
* RADIUS server QB interface for customers
* Hotspot billing integration
* Ability to import VOIP call-detail-records & bill customers based on usage
* Ability to import RADIUS accounting records for customer usage billing

These aren't developed yet but as developers would like to see what kind of
market is out there for small ISPs.  Many who probably use Quickbooks
already for accounting.

Please reply OFFLIST.

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Fw: CALEA RouterOS Support and MUM

[Doug Ratcliffe]

For those who aren't on Mikrotik's mailing list:

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: CALEA RouterOS Support and MUM


> Eight days until the US MUM!  There is still time to get a good deal on
flights and hotel accommodations.  http://mum.mikrotik.com/2007/US/
>
> The following CALEA features will be included in the next version of both
RouterOS 2.9.XX and 3.X beta.
>
> CALEA features included in RouterOS
> ---
> Multiple subject/multiple destination packet interception and streaming in
> following formats:
>
> * Call Content Connection (CCC) Interface according to
>   PKT-SP-ES-DCI-I01-060914 (PacketCable 2.0 PacketCable Electronic
Surveillance
>   Delivery Function to Collection Function Interface Specification)
>
> * Call Content Connection (CCC) Interface according to ANSI/SCTE 24-13
2006
>   (IPCalblecom Electronic Surveillance Standard) that is approved method
for
>   Communication Content delivery to LEA according to ATIS-113.2007
>   (Lawfully Authorized Electronic Surveillance For Internet Access and
>   Services)
>
> * TZSP format - for reception with 'Ethereal', tcpdump, trafr (sniffer
stream
> reader for linux) - http://www.mikrotik.com/download.html
>
>
> CALEA-server package
> 
> * accepts multiple CCC streams (identified by destination port/source
> address/case id)
>
> * stores communication content according to "IP Network Access Intercept
> Requirements and Method"(FBI-WISPA draft) specified "full content"
intercept
> requirements (without out-of-band events)
>
> * stores communication content of multiple subjects/cases
>
> * stores communication content in libpcap format
>
> * new libpcap file based on different conditions (interval/size/packet
count)
>
> * generates hash for each pcap file (md5/sha1/sha256)
>
> Initial documentation can be found at: http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Calea
>
>
> Don't forget to attend the MUM CALEA Panel Discussion and register for the
MikroTik CALEA Workshop:
>
> - MikroTik CALEA Workshop, Wednesday May 30th 1-5PM (registration required
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
> - CALEA Panel Discussion, Friday June 1st 11:15-12:45
> http://mum.mikrotik.com/2007/US/agenda
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Training
> MikroTik






No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/815 - Release Date: 5/22/2007
3:49 PM

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Credit Card Processing

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'm actually going to switch to this from my in-house billing system
("system" defined very loosely).  Thanks for posting this, it looks like a
winner to me.  Hopefully someone will put up a Radius or Hotspot-based API
solution for this software (or I'll just write it :) ).  Looks like you
could post an invoice from an external application.  Very nice, esp. the
recurring billing and the ability to have them mail or email your invoices
for you.  I like that too(even for $1.39 each snail mail, and free by email,
saves me the time and does it automatically every month).

Thanks

- Original Message - 
From: "Dennis Burgess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Credit Card Processing


> yep, works well.
>
> Something else to look at so far I have had good luck with it is a company
> called freshbooks.  www.freshbooks.com.  It is a complete on-line
accouting
> system for the most part, reoccuring billing, etc, and allows customers to
> create tickets, etc, and you can assign them a value to charge them.  I
use
> it for my consulting business. Very slick, it also allows them to
intergrate
> the invoices with a CRAP load of on-line payment processors including
> paypal.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> On 5/22/07, Ralph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 2.9% plus 30 cents
> > It is no worse than any other credit card service.
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Chadd Thompson
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:56 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Credit Card Processing
> >
> >
> > Doesn't paypal charge a pretty hefty transaction fee when accepting
> > payments
> > with this type of account?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chadd
> >
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dennis Burgess, MCP, CCNA, A+, N+, Mikrotik Certified Consultant
> www.mikrotikconsulting.com
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007
2:01 PM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] CLEC Services

[Doug Ratcliffe]

We have a CLEC who's co-located their offices with ours, and although
they're residential copper analog only, they told us they can order anything
from the ILEC for us for cost and a small markup.  But it's Bellsouth
territory, and he's given me the tech line's phone number and a big book of
services, but I don't even know where to start.  I'm looking for prices on
T1's, and also DSL I can sell private label with my own TOS.  I don't want
to have any facilities to install at the CO, just use the CO's equipment
under the CLEC's name but I don't even know what services to request.

Any ideas where to start?


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Outsourced vs in-house email

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Currently we do in-house email.  We always have one problem or another with
our old IMail server ,plus dealing with a spam server and antivirus... We
have about 15 domains we currently host, about 150 users.  Is it cost
effective to outsource something this small?  Also on a similar note, does
anyone know of a free Exchange host out there that will download pop3 mail
and Direct Push to my mobile phone?

Thanks

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Nifty new tool for the cable ops

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Has anyone noticed that this unit's in the 800-900nm range vs the 1300nm
range?  It's much closer to visible light which might explain the 30deg...

- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Nifty new tool for the cable ops


Very cool video Stephen!

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Stephen Patrick
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:56 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Nifty new tool for the cable ops

Zack, you flatter us!

Seriously, answering a few questions that were voiced
- 30degrees is very wide for FSO - the link budgets for 350feet (~100m)
would normally entail a narrower beam.
- I don't believe Plaintree use automatic tracking, but they could speak for
themselves of course
- Automatic tracking is needed for narrow beam (~1mRad) systems because
buildings move more than that.

Without trying to make a commercial pitch, our co. does both fixed wide-beam
and tracked systems for a variety of applications.
Have a look here if you want to see a demonstrator of an aerospace solution
for mobile platforms:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4945168689485668209&pr=goog-sl
It has full 360degree mobile tracking and in the demo is doing 1.25Gbps
Gigabit Ethernet on/off the vehicle.

For the "cableco" application, that's interesting, and we do have very low
cost, stable widebeam systems that can be used exactly for that.

Best regards

Stephen

-Original Message-
From: Zack Kneisley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 May 2007 16:05
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Nifty new tool for the cable ops

These guys know their stuff when it comes to FSO

http://www.cablefreesolutions.com/products_serviceprovider.htm

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

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

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

--
This email has been verified as Virus free Virus Protection and more
available at http://www.plus.net


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 01/05/2007
14:57

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/784 - Release Date: 5/1/2007 2:57
PM


-- 
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 Hotspot Setup

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I just wanted to mention about this.  It's true, Routerboards are not FCC
certified.  Neither are WRAP boards.   But there are a lot of inexpensive,
fast combo boards that are FCC certified, that fit into nice 1U/2U short
rack cases that are also FCC certified, making an inexpensive, FCC modular
computer certified solution.  You can then use conventional ethernet AP's
(FCC certified) which makes a nice solution that works well.

Also a reminder that using a conventional network card from D-Link / Netgear
/ Linksys / Bufflao with their own certified antennas is another way to make
a Mikrotik system legal in the US.  Those manufacturers now have a number of
outdoor antennas now.

The preferred solution of 400mW cards, antennas etc... if someone would FCC
certify a SR2 / SR5 / SR9 on a PCI->mPCI adapter, with a range out of
outdoor antennas we could run Mikrotik AP's on conventional PC's...


- Original Message - 
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik Hotspot Setup


> Ty,
>
> I assume you are planning to use certified gear for this.
>
> Regards,
> Dawn DiPietro
>
>
> Ty Carter  wrote:
> > Anyone out there willing to throw a helping hand to me in setting up a
> > MT hotspot  I have tried several times; and just can not get it to
> > function as I think it is prescribed to function... i.e. can't get it to
> > work... doa.
> >
> > I will be glad to call whomever for assistancePlease shoot me a
> > contact number off-list and I will be glad to discuss this in detail.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ty Carter, President
> > Strategic Network Consultants, Inc.
> > 524 East 9th Street
> > Washington, NC  27889
> > 252-946-0351 .::. Office
> > 252-402-5296 .::. Cell
> > 252-946-8763 .::. Fax
> > E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Visit us on the web at:  http://www.strategicconsultants.net
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/782 - Release Date: 5/1/2007
2:10 AM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Probably gets anonymously injected into the media by the cell companies
trying to make muni-Wifi a worse alternative to paying $59 a month for
mobile data service...

- Original Message - 
From: "Ryan Langseth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?


> I would suggest going there with some "pretty pictures". You can tell
> anyone anything, and they may say they understand, But as House says
> "people lie".  Go there with some graphs of Spectrum Analysis of things
> like a AP at 25' versus a Microwave at 25'.  Ask the parents how many of
> their kids care cell phones. Even go there with a sweep of the a large
> spectrum of some area.  People that are worried about wifi "poisoning"
> probably got the concern citizen look from some other source, (News
> Media/tabloids, etc) and are oblivious how what else puts out
> "Radiation".
>
> Ryan
>
> On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 10:31 -0500, Jonathan Schmidt wrote:
> > It is clearly a logical quandary to prove a negative and it is known by
> > those who have other agendas as a technique to inject fear, uncertainty,
and
> > doubt.
> >
> > Non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has the "death" word,
"radiation",
> > and easily causes fear due to the lack of response to the request to
"prove
> > that it isn't harmful."
> >
> > However, so is a lit match, and with a lot more electromagnetic
radiation
> > power than an access point...and, in fact, a flashlight, too.
> >
> > The exercise that some, as in the "case study", go through to "prove"
that
> > the levels are safe just feed the FUD since no level is unsafe up closer
to
> > the levels found inside a kilowatt microwave oven, most of which leak
more
> > into a kitchen than an AP does at 1 foot and at the same frequency.
> >
> > It apparently cost Motorola millions to counter the mischief makers over
> > cell phones who tried to bring it to its knees with pseudo-scientific
mumbo
> > jumbo that got lots of press.
> >
> > It doesn't appear that any satisfactory response can be mounted to those
who
> > use these techniques...except time...time as taken by the coffee
industry
> > when the nut cases finally gave up and the power industry who are on the
> > back side, now, of the power-line problem.
> >
> > . . . j o n a t h a n
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Peter R.
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 9:36 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] School WiFi / Wireless info ?
> >
> > Smith, Rick wrote:
> >
> > >I plan to use an FCC Certified solution.  That's not the issue.  The
> > >issue is, is "standard" documentation from Ubiquiti good enough as to
> > >radio  strengths, etc for the documentation to prove "it's not harmful"
> > >?
> > >
> > >isn't there a standard FCC document that states all this ?
> > >
> > >
> > No standard FCC doc on this.
> >
> > There was a alarge study done in the UK recently.
> > (Google would be your friend)
> > http://airbears.berkeley.edu/wlan.shtml
> > http://www.wlana.org/learn/health.htm
> >
www.3gamericas.org/pdfs/Comsearch_whitepaper_*health*care_wp_TP-100322-EN.pd
> > f
> > www.red-m.com/downloads/case-studies/BAA%20Case%20*Study*.pdf -
> >
> > -- 
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007
3:23 PM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

[Doug Ratcliffe]

But why not get a SBC certified as a motherboard, like a MSI, Asus, etc? 
The power supply (DC 12V) is already certified most of the time, and the 
case itself, how many times have you seen a Foxconn or Antec case with no 
power supply have a sticker on it in the first place?


So SBC=motherboard, case=case w/o power supply, power supply = FCC cert wall 
adapter, and REGARDLESS of the accessories, a SBC would be no different than 
a garden variety clone PC.


- Original Message - 
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s 
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval




Scott,

The wireless card and antenna has to be present to be certified with the 
SBC. Without the card and the antenna the SBC cannot be certified as a 
system.


If we would get  an SBC certified bare as a base unit then we could use 
it with various cards in whatever enclosure we want to use.
As I understood it, your initial post was to certify the board and the 
enclosure with no wireless device and antenna in hopes of using any 
combination of cards and antenna. If I misunderstood what you were trying 
to say I apologize.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:

Actually, the SBC is never an intentional radiator.  The added card is.
As I read, and Tim says the same thing in a later post, we need the SBCs 
certified the same as laptops.  Certified as non-intentional radiators 
that accept intential radiators that are certified.


Isn't that what the presented ruling says can happen?

Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

The SBC would not be a transmitter without the mPCI wireless card now 
would it. The SBC would be the host device.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro

Scott Reed wrote:
Right, for the transmitter.  That is the mPCI card that goes in the 
laptop.  I am talking about the laptop itself.  Laptop = SBC = WRAP = 
RB = ???


Dawn DiPietro wrote:

Scott,

In order for the system to be certified it must include the modular 
transmitter and the antenna. If you did not include these parts what 
would you be certifying exactly?


As quoted from said document;

The modular transmitter must comply with the antenna requirements of 
Section 15.203
and 15.204(c). The antenna must either be permanently attached or 
employ a “unique”
antenna coupler (at all connections between the module and the 
antenna, including the
cable). Any antenna used with the module must be approved with the 
module, either at
the time of initial authorization or through a Class II permissive 
change. The
“professional installation” provision of Section 15.203 may not be 
applied to modules.


Regards,
Dawn DiPietro


Scott Reed wrote:
And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card 
vendor is certified with.


From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions. 
If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in 
its certification then:
1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC 
certified as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified 
if it is in a box?


Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare 
as a base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever 
enclosure we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise 
being emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures that 
increase the RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in 
a box shouldn't negate the certification.  That would be like saying 
I can't put my laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.


If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use in 
our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  And if 
we can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the 
antennae we use in their certifications, we may be able to legally 
use a lot more equipment.

Jack Unger wrote:

Scott,

I believe that your comments are substantially correct.

The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that 
very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have 
certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. 
I don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember 
that the software used must limit operation of the complete system 
only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the 
U.S.


jack


Scott Reed wrote:
I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the 
referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not 
about "split modular" to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I 
read it that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the 
radio card is certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card 
and antenna can be used.


So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is 
right, not any "base," but I w

Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the ,Commission’s Rules for unlicensed devices and,equ ipment approval

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Ok,

I can see several things in this ruling.  It's of course referring to
consumer installed PCI/USB/miniPCI(we sell retail boxed laptop wireless
cards for consumer install).  Well, these cards are certified SEPARATE from
the computer itself, so Netgear, Dlink, Linksys can have a wide range of
antenna options.  So why don't all of the vendors get together to get the
SR2/SR5/SR9/CM9/Senao cards certified with say the most popular antenna
options (Rootennas, grid dishes, etc) as if they were consumer installed
cards for laptops, NOT for WISPs.  But that would give our usage of it
because nothing stops us from sticking a Linksys ad-hoc wireless card on the
rooftop of a building and broadcasting wireless from a PC.  EVEN a Linux
box - look at MadWIFI - binary drivers to keep FCC certification.  And
MadWIFI lets your Linux box be a FCC certified AP.

Now that leaves the software itself, Mikrotik/StarOS to modular certify
their software with those cards.  Or switch back to a standardized FCC
certified firmware binary.

I can see this ruling being out there because Dell / HP / Compaq might be
nervous about losing their overall FCC cert on pre-installed wireless cards.
As computer system builders we've all been using modular certifications for
years:  FCC certified case, motherboard, video card, modem, etc.  Add FCC
certified wireless cards to that mix and guess what - now you've got a
computer capable of being an access point, and being FCC certified by
default. Use RP-SMA instead of N-Male for the connector rules.  Get some
certified antennas (and I think there's probably already a list of certified
antennas for use with Ubiquiti's cards), and now you've got FCC certified
WISP equipment.

- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Modifications of Parts 2 and 15 of the,Commission’s
Rules for unlicensed devices and,equipment approval


> And look as I might, I have trouble find what antennae the card vendor
> is certified with.
>
>  From other discussions, I would ask a couple of additional questions.
> If we assume we can find a mPCI card that has WISP usable antennae in
> its certification then:
> 1) Couldn't someone just get an RBxxx or WRAP or whatever SBC certified
> as a base unit and we could put the card in it?
> 2) If an SBC is certified without an enclosure, is it still certified if
> it is in a box?
>
> Here is what I am thinking.  If we would get  an SBC certified bare as a
> base unit then we could use it with various cards in whatever enclosure
> we want to use.  The FCC seems to be interested in RF noise being
> emitted.  I don't think there are very many enclosures that increase the
> RF output, so if a bare SBC is certified, putting it in a box shouldn't
> negate the certification.  That would be like saying I can't put my
> laptop in a suitcase if the laptop is powered on.
>
> If this is the case, getting some of the equipment many of  us use in
> our operations certified may not be as hard as once thought.  And if we
> can show the mPCI makers the advantage of including some of the antennae
> we use in their certifications, we may be able to legally use a lot more
> equipment.
>
> Jack Unger wrote:
> > Scott,
> >
> > I believe that your comments are substantially correct.
> >
> > The main problem that I see with building our own equipment is that
> > very few (if any) manufacturers of modular wireless cards have
> > certified them with a range of usable external WISP-grade antennas. I
> > don't think this 2nd Report and Order changes that. Also, remember
> > that the software used must limit operation of the complete system
> > only to those frequencies and power levels that are legal in the U.S.
> >
> > jack
> >
> >
> > Scott Reed wrote:
> >> I haven't read it really well and I have not yet looked up the
> >> referenced sections of Part 15, but I read the part that is not about
> >> "split modular" to be the part the refers to a PC.  And I read it
> >> that if the PC is certified to have radio cards AND the radio card is
> >> certified with an antenna, then that PC, radio card and antenna can
> >> be used.
> >>
> >> So, if that is true, then Tim may be on the right track.  Jack is
> >> right, not any "base," but I would read it that any "certified base"
> >> is doable.
> >> I have often wondered how it works for laptops, but hadn't bothered
> >> to find it.  This makes sense.  Ubiquiti certifies the CM9 card with
> >> a set of antennae.  Dell certifies the laptop for a radio card.
> >> Putting a CM9 in Dell's laptop is fine as long as it connects to an
> >> antenna, using the proper cable, that was certified with the CM9.
> >>
> >> Therefore, if MT can get an RBxxx board certified as a "base" unit,
> >> we should be able to use a CM9 in that RBxxx with the proper antenna
> >> and be good.  The "gotcha" here is those sections of Part 15 I have
> >> not yet followed up on.  I am not 

Re: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Why can't the FCC award licenses like this based on their rules for 
non-commercial FM radio stations... they are willing to GIVE AWAY full power 
FM radio spectrum to people who have capital to do the work.  I'm sure 
there's enough WISPs out there to apply for these licenses.  Basically 
designed so ONLY smaller carriers can utilize them...


But alas, radio spectrum is more media friendly and noticed by the people, 
so a lot more people out there scream that their church isn't able to get a 
FM station than people who scream that they can't get internet access in 
rural areas...


FYI - A reminder to people out there interested in starting a noncommercial 
radio station (for whatever reason), applications must be recieved between 
Oct 12 and Oct 19, 2007, and the application itself costs nothing...


- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Open Meeting on 700 MHz


Apparently there is a meeting scheduled today, April 25, at the FCC over 
how the 700 MHz band is going to be split up for auction. It amazes me how 
we can be kept in the dark about these meetings. If anyone can tell me how 
to get included on announcements of such meetings I need to know about it. 
This really angers me that we are not there with some representation 
today. If anyone reads this who is near the DC area please go to this 
meeting and tell them we need spectrum to be made available on a base 
station license basis. They need to auction off individual base station 
licenses or reserve some for a flat fee so all of us can compete. If they 
do not then hundreds if not thousands of operators who are now serving 
rural broadband will not be able to compete. This is an anti-competitive 
problem that the FCC needs to address with this auction. This is a big 
deal. If we do not get some 700 MHz or similar sub- 1 GHz spectrum it is 
going to be very bad for us all.

Scriv

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Mikrotik hasn't realized yet how much money they can make by implementing
CALEA 100% and charging $100-$200 extra for a CALEA specific capture
license...

- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23


> But does that meet CALEA specs? Not really, since it does not do the
> MD5 hash and such. At least that is what I get from reading about
> CALEA. Basically if a TTP doesn't sign off on it you  be at the
> wrong end of a investigation when the lawyers start saying it was not
> captured correctly. You should talk to your lawyer about it and not
> take my opinion of it as anything but just what it is, stinky just
> like every ones.
>
>
> On 4/23/07, Smith, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're reading too much into it.
> >
> > They're right.  The ability is there to mirror every packet to/from a IP
> > address onto disk.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of ralph
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:23 PM
> > To: 'WISPA General List'
> > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23
> >
> > It is lame because it is a feature that the user community needs and
> > wants,
> > and the vendor is passing the buck.
> >
> > Not surprising, concerning their actions on FCC certification of other
> > products.
> >
> > Mikrotik makes dandy router software and I support them on that.
> >
> > We do use the PC version in some POPs
> >
> >
> >
> > Open CALEA is just not yet ready for prime time, however the compliance
> > date
> > loometh soon.
> >
> >
> >
> > The CALEA tap/probe should be something that can be done in the router
> > (I
> > think that's how Cisco implemented it).
> >
> > Because Imagestream will have it ready May 1st, we went with their box
> > just
> > to have something that works now has been tested with the FBI.
> >
> > I'd just like to feel that the company who many of us support heavily
> > should
> > listen to and support its customers better.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've seen your posts and am well aware that one can capture all traffic
> > via
> > mirror port and hand the whole shebang over to the LEA, or we can spend
> > hours wading through it and massaging data (which I think might cause it
> > to
> > be tainted). We've probably all captured users' traffic before and
> > probably
> > all know how to run Ethereal.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd just like to see an accepted method that doesn't take an abundance
> > of
> > time to institute and maintain.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm curious- do you have a solution, working now, that uses the hardware
> > you
> > mention and OpenCALEA to deliver a product that will be accepted by law
> > enforcement, or are you just talking concepts?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   _
> >
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:55 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik's (lame) answer to CALEA as of 4/23
> >
> >
> >
> > Why is that lame? I don't see where this is Mikrotik's problem or issue.
> >
> > I'm going to keep saying this over and over and over (started over a
> > year
> > ago). Use a smart ethernet switch and mirror your main internet
> > connection
> > to a box that can capture the traffic. Then use something like openCalea
> > (www.opencalea.org). Even if you have to buy a switch, a box to run the
> > software, etc. you are less than $500 total. If you have multiple NOC's,
> > $500 per location is cheap.
> >
> > Travis
> > Microserv
> >
> > ralph wrote:
> >
> > I asked:
> >
> >
> >
> > I have 3 of your licensed routers (level 4) When do you plan to
> > release a version of RouterOS that is CALEA compliant?
> >
> > Thank You
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > They Replied:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > It already is, you simply have to enable sniffer of all traffic, and
> > store
> > the raw data on a server that captures it. You can also use smart
> > switches
> > that can mirror ports to a capturing server. See discussions on our
> > forum on
> > this topic.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Normunds
> > --
> > Come to MikroTik User Meetings
> > - April 28th, Abuja, NIGERIA
> > - May 31st - June 1st, Orlando, USA
> > http://mum.mikrotik.com
> >
> >
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> > --
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incomi

Re: [WISPA] OT: Main Street USA

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'd say US 1, which runs from the end of Florida, to the border of Canada on
the East Coast.  It's Main Street for most cities it goes through.  US 1 in
Florida is at least 400 miles long...

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT: Main Street USA


> Ok... I have to go off-topic for a second... I keep seeing the Main
> Street USA subject line and need to post... and it's Friday... :)
>
> Which state in the US has the longest main street and how long is it?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.5/769 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
5:56 PM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Chase,

I'm glad to see we've got a Meraki rep out there that can answer questions.
Let me just start by saying, I think these things are awesome.  Love the
dashboard.

I do have a question - the FCC approvals list modular certified, but what
radio chipset does it use so I can get more powerful FCC approved antennas?
60mW is ok, but I would like to use a 8 or 9dbi rubber duck antenna so I can
get more wall penetration.  Testing with a 5dbi omni yielded decent results,
more solid connections.  I have tons of deployments I'm going to start using
Meraki instead of Mikrotik due to FCC certification issues.

In fact, I'm thinking about using Meraki to replace my existing aging
sectorized 2.4ghz 802.11b network.  I would like to see some QOS features
added to Meraki on the dashboard - or just preset to prioritize based on
packet TOS.


- Original Message - 
From: "Chase Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Main Street USA


> Hi,
>
> John asked me to pop in and say "hi" on behalf of Meraki.  He and I go
> way back.  Whatever questions you guys have I'll be happy to answer.
>
> A little about me: Been at Meraki since September of last year.
> Worked at MVN, NCSA, and Mozilla.  Volunteered on CUWiN from 2002 to
> 2006 with Dave, Sascha, Bryan, and others.  Been involved in NS4CWN in
> 2004 and 2006.
>
> Rick Smith asks:
> > OK, but can we as wisps use the meraki units on our own ?
> >
> > i.e. can we use it to extend mikrotik hotspots out through a mesh of
> > merakii (hah!)
> >
> > or, do we have to pay Meraki to use their hotspot stuff ?
>
> I've not set up a Mikrotik hotspot before but based on product photos
> I assume it can connect upstream via wired and wireless (functioning
> as a client to an AP in an infrastructure network) connections.  In
> both scenarios, the Meraki Mini can function as that upstream
> connection.
>
> Of course, the Mini can function as a hotspot as well.  If you have
> specific feature requirements that would simplify and enhance your
> deployments, I'm excited to hear about them.  We think you're all
> doing great work!
>
> Regards,
> Chase
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
5:32 AM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I did some more checking, and it appears people have already wrote custom
mesh software for the Meraki (CuWIN, the-mesh.net, etc).  So even if you or
someone else objected to the phone home strategy, there's other meshing
software for it.  At the price, it beats buying a WRT54G, is POE, and has
more FCC approved power (60mW for the Meraki, vs 30mW for the WRT).

On the bright side, the Linux source code is available, people have already
made custom firmware flashes, so even if Meraki goes belly up, we can still
utilize our equipment in some form.

- Original Message - 
From: "Dylan Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA


Marlon,

in the time it takes you to write a sentence like:

It's my understanding that Google is somehow involved with this product.

You could go to Google - or better yet, an objective third party like Yahoo!
- and type in "google meraki".

Scan the page, and see something like :
GigaOM » *Google* Invests in
*Meraki*And
you no longer have to clutter the list with idle, uninformed speculation.

Likewise, Meraki posts its privacy policy at
http://meraki.net/legal/privacy/. See esp. the section:
Does Meraki Networks Share the Information It Receives?Meraki units HAVE to
phone home to e.g. update the dashboard.

Best,
-- 
Dylan Oliver
Primaverity, LLC
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
5:32 AM


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'd like to see if Meraki would be willing to sell / give away their
dashboard, and then you could just do some kind of firmware update to set
the main site.   I like all the integrated management, and I don't think
they could data mine unless their user agreement said so.  I don't remember
what it said particularly but I would use my own hotspot software, not
theirs, so theoretically, they could only mine traffic patterns.

Some great Meraki information (turning off NAT, logging in via SSH) is at
http://www.fias.co.nz/.

I'm thinking about using either PPTP or PPPoE to provide static IP's via
Meraki's internal network.  Also I see some people have already flashed
Meraki's with Linux, so it's out there.

- Original Message - 
From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA


> It's my understanding that Google is somehow involved with this product.
>
> I'm guessing that there is some form of data mining involved with them.
> Don't know it, but I'd not be at all surprised.  And why else would they
> HAVE to phone home in order to work?  Something with them is fishy.  Nice
> units or not, I don't think I'll put them in my network anytime soon.
>
> Might use them for a cheap/easy paid hotspot in some parks or something
> though.
>
> Marlon
> (509) 982-2181
> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services
> 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since
1999!
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
>
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tim Kerns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA
>
>
> > We have one installed as a free hotspot for now while we test. As a
> > hotspot it is working great. The issue I have with the units is from
what
> > I see they MUST "call home" to get configuration and will not allow data
> > or clients to pass until it does. Also I believe they are using some
sort
> > of tunnel, I can tracert from one to a public site, but if I try to ping
> > one of my AP in my network or SSH into one it fails.
> >
> > I think these would be great if we could install the control software on
> > one of our servers, but I don't want any of my clients internet
> > connections to be controlled by a 3rd party, or not have access because
> > the Meraki site is either not available or running slow as it seemed to
be
> > last Friday.
> >
> > Tim Kerns
> > CV-Access, Inc.
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "Dylan Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA
> >
> >
> >> The Meraki nodes are configured through the central web dashboard. All
> >> payments go through Meraki, and they get their cut (I'm not sure what
> >> that
> >> is). The access controls are just lists of MAC addresses to be allowed
or
> >> bypass the captive portal. There's no support for RADIUS.
> >>
> >> You *could* extend a Mikrotik hotspot with Meraki, though.
> >>
> >> On 4/19/07, Smith, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK, but can we as wisps use the meraki units on our own ?
> >>>
> >>> i.e. can we use it to extend mikrotik hotspots out through a mesh of
> >>> merakii (hah!)
> >>>
> >>> or, do we have to pay Meraki to use their hotspot stuff ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> Dylan Oliver
> >> Primaverity, LLC
> >> -- 
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >>
> >
> > -- 
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
> -- 
> WISPA 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.4/768 - Release Date: 4/19/2007
5:32 AM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Main Street USA

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I've only used in small indoor MTU deployments but I like Meraki, indoor and
outdoor versions available.  Outdoor Mesh router, auto-failover,
auto-gateway, built in hotspot, like less than $100.  NetEquality.net has
some nice pics and also custom antenna attachments, and you can see actual
mesh network maps overlaid on google maps.  There's an online dashboard
included which shows paths, users per AP, logs usage data, even (later)
collect money, although I think I will be using Chillispot for that myself.
You can plug one into an active internet connection (wireless backhaul, DSL,
cable), and it automatically becomes a gateway.  You can have one with no
connection that's a repeater, and you can sell one to customers without wifi
and it becomes a CPE.  It's all very simple, and as long as you avoid too
many hops (like 3) you should be fine.


- Original Message - 
From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:26 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Main Street USA


> If YOU had to implement a "muni wireless" 802.11 hotspot to cover Main
> Street USA, which is about 1 mile long. What equipment would you use?
> Budget is about $10k. Area is flat, little trees, and only a few tall
> buildings.
>
> Thanks!
> RickG
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
7:39 AM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Interesting Call Today

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Add me to the list also.

Interesting.

- Original Message - 
From: "Rick Harnish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:06 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Interesting Call Today


> One of our salespeople got a call today from AT&T that I feel I must share
> and see if others are getting similar calls.
>
>
>
> The AT&T rep told our saleperson that he was looking for temporary (2 day
> service) to various locations that do not have access to cable/DSL or
fiber.
> They need these connections for conference call meetings and will need our
> company to set up a wireless router at the location as well.  He needs
these
> connections done in as short as a 3-4 day window.
>
>
>
> Has anyone else had similar calls?  Not sure if they are just fishing for
> information or what.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Rick Harnish
>
> President
>
> OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.
>
> 260-827-2482
>
> Founding Member of WISPA
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.2/766 - Release Date: 4/18/2007
7:39 AM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Power Lines in the LOS path

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Agreed there.  I moved a unit from one end of a house (clear path, but power
lines) to the other end, and lower (under  the power lines) and seen a
dramatic increase even though the signal level was similar in both places.

- Original Message - 
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power Lines in the LOS path


> I've also had some luck in moving the antennas.  Should have mentioned
that
> before.  I had one customer get 3 or 4 x the speeds just by moving his
> antenna UP by 2'.  Had another one double the speeds by moving it DOWN 4'.
>
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Jaron Parsons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power Lines in the LOS path
>
>
> > Jim,
> > I have run into very similar situations, where high power lines, were
the
> > only explanation as to the interference.  I was able to work around it
in
> > some situations by adjusting the customer antenna to shoot under the
> > powerlines, however, this is not always possible, nor is it always the
> > fix.  In most of these cases, we were able to get data through, but not
at
> > the speed that it should have been, so we would end up selling the
> > customer a lower speed package.  I have been unable to find much
> > information about this, but would be greatly interested in hearing what
> > others have done, if they have run into it at all.
> > Jaron Parsons
> > Sumner Communications
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Stout wrote:
> >> I hate to ask this question, but I'm at my wit's end with this one.
> >>
> >> I recently installed a new customer (2.4 GHz) with a clear LOS to my
> >> tower.  The distance is less than a mile and I get -56 dBm of signal
> >> strength.  I've run a spectrum analyzer and it's dead silent when the
> >> radio's off..  All sounds great!  A real simple install, but the radio
> >> intermittently locks up, fails to associate and most recently, simply
> >> fails to work for more then 10 - 30 seconds at a time following a POR.
> >> I've replaced radio (Tranzeo SL2) and gone to the latest version of
> >> firmware.  I even contacted Tranzeo Tech Support and follwed their
> >> recommendations for timing settings.  The only difference between this
> >> client and all the others on my tower is that there is a power line in
> >> the LOS path.  Has anyone else found this to be a problem?  It's almost
> >> like an invisible concrete wall is between the AP and the site.
> >>
> >> Thanks, Jim
> >>
> >> Jim Stout
> >> LTO Communications, LLC
> >> 15701 Henry Andrews Dr
> >> Pleasant Hill, MO 64080
> >> (816) 305-1076 - Mobile
> >> (816) 497-0033 - Pager
> >>
> >
> > -- 
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.2.0/756 - Release Date: 4/10/2007
10:44 PM
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Our First WISP Consultant Vendor Member - Butch Evans

[Doug Ratcliffe]

As far as Mikrotik goes, if any one/more/all MT vendor(s) in this country
paid an FCC lab to certify the boards/radios (can't the radios/antennas can
be modular certified by Ubiquiti/Senao?), could that work as a blanket
certification that MT could attach to their boards/radios, or does each
individual unit/vendor need an FCC certification?

- Original Message - 
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Our First WISP Consultant Vendor Member - Butch Evans


> Coolness!  Welcome aboard Butch!
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:00 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Our First WISP Consultant Vendor Member - Butch Evans
>
>
> >I am sure many of you know a friend of mine, Butch Evans, who has been
> > here helping for as long as I can remember on all the WISP lists out
> > there. Butch is one of my favorite people in this industry. He is not
> > just a good consultant, he is a good person who genuinely cares about
> > the people as much as the work. He is a friend and I am very happy to be
> > making his introduction here today. Butch has helped WISPA by serving on
> > our nominations committee and CALEA committee and has supported our
> > efforts to build WISPA since the beginning. He signed up as an Associate
> > Member a while back and has now upgraded his membership to a full Vendor
> > Membership in WISPA. This makes him our first WISP Consultant Vendor
> > Member I believe. You are one of the truly good ones Butch Evans and I
> > thank you for making this step up in WISPA. Here is some background
> > information about Butch in his own words:
> >
> > In January of 1994, I began working as an ISP with a small company in
> > rural south east Missouri.  I have been (since then) either an employee
> > of or partner in 4 ISPs.  The ISP business is a passion for me.  I have
> > spent countless hours reading and "tinkering" with my network.  During
> > the period of 1994-2006, I have become quite proficient with network
> > designs that make an ISP network behave as it should.
> >
> > In 2001, I began using Mikrotik RouterOS on my network to build out my
> > infrastructure.  This software (in my opinion) fills nearly every need
> > that most small ISPs or other small businesses could ever need for a
> > routing infrastructure.  I began working on a curriculum to train other
> > ISPs about this software in 2003 as part of a partnership with
> > WISP-Router that we called WISP-Training.  The WISP-Training
> > organization has trained HUNDREDS of WISPs, small business, hobbyists
> > and government employees to use the Mikrotik software.  I am 1 of only 2
> > certified Mikrotik RouterOS trainers in the United States.
> >
> > In February 2006, I went full time in consulting and training.  My time
> > is dedicated to assisting WISPs in building, troubleshooting and
> > designing their networks.  As much as I misss being an ISP, teaching has
> > become a real passion for me.  I now have 2 fully developed training
> > courses and will (by the end of the year) have another 2.  I have
> > training partnerships with several WISP equipment resellers and am
> > working to develop further relationships in this area.
> >
> > Butch Evans Consulting is passionate about the WISP industry and our
> > goal is to see your business succeed through proper network design,
> > education and management of existing resources.
> >
> > -- 
> > Butch Evans
> > Network Engineering and Security Consulting
> > 573-276-2879
> > http://www.butchevans.com/
> > My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
> > Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf
> > Mikrotik Certified Consultant
> > http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html
> >
> > -- 
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/2007
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] hotspot

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Then why doesn't Mikrotik GET their boards FCC certified?  I know it's cheap
but if 1000 of us WISPs spend $5k each to certify it, vs MT spending $5k
once and charging an extra 5 bucks, I'd rather do that.

Annoying to say the least.

- Original Message - 
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] hotspot


> You can buy a portal from Valuepoint or any of the other manufacturers of
> them.
>
> You can use a PC running Mikrotik. Pay 40 bucks for the hotspot license.
>
> You can use a PC running Chillispot.
>
> Then, connect their existing Linksys APs.
>
> That way you are using a certified motherboard (a PC) and already
certified
> access points.
>
> Stay away from Mikrotik Routerboard (neither the board nor the radios are
> Part 15 certified in that configuration).
>
> Stay away from DDWRT firmware in a Linksys unless Linksys (or the DDWRT
> developers) can show you that using firmware other than with which the
unit
> was certified using allows it to still maintain certification.  You'll
> probably find out you get blank stares when you try. The DDWRT firmware
> allows you to adjust the power far beyond that which was approved.
>
> Ralph
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: WISPA General List; isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com
> Subject: [WISPA] hotspot
>
> Hi,
>
> We have been contacted by a hotel that would like us to install some
> type of access control on their wireless service. Currently they have 6
> or 8 Linksys AP's connected via ethernet back to their main switch.
> Their Cisco router is providing DHCP. The problem is they have a lot of
> people using their service "around" the hotel area (parking lot,
> businesses next door, etc.) and so they would like to have just a very
> basic authentication system (username / password).
>
> Any suggestions for something inexpensive? Something that would also act
> more like a bridge (two ethernets) so we could just plug and play?
>
> thanks,
>
> Travis
> Microserv
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/737 - Release Date: 3/28/2007
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I've been looking over OpenCALEA - I can't really see any reason for a
NON-VOIP provider that it wouldn't do everything properly needed from a
Linux command prompt on a 700mhz old HP Presario, all for a cost of less
than $100 for a used computer.  And when OpenCALEA is done, it will solve
99% of our problems, minus potential network design issues (routed vs.
bridged) but even those can eventually be overcome.

Now VOIP, maybe needs more in OpenCALEA to work, but why argue, let's just
help make OpenCALEA work, if we NEED to do it, it's cheap, available and
we're compliant should their opinion actually become fact.  Already the
FBI's accused of abusing their powers of the Patriot Act, but let's face it.
Whether we like it or not EVENTUALLY the NEED to wiretap broadband
connections WILL emerge.  The bad guys aren't going to go away any time
soon.  So whether this year we're an information service, if every wired
(DSL, Cable, etc) is wiretappable, and we are not, the bad guys will FLOCK
to our networks.And then we will be forced in 1,2 years to do it
anyways.  I do NOT advocate spending hundreds of thousands to do this.  I DO
advocate developing a free solution like OpenCALEA and maybe even seeing it
ported to Windows for those ISPs who don't have linux help at hand.

It's inevitable guys, how can YOUR upstream give them YOUR customers
information from an IP address?  We can't sit around hoping to pawn this
task off on someone else.  When the FBI calls your upstream and asks them to
tap Tony Montana's broadband connection, and they say, who the heck is that,
that's XYZ Wireless ISP?  Then they call you and ask, and you say "We can't
do it".  And those ISPs who NAT their customers can't rely on the upstream
for help.

So then what?  Big media press release that Wireless ISPs are the reason
criminals are getting away with fraud, identity theft, etc.

I'm not saying this will happen, but logically, what choice IS there other
than having the ability to do this?

- Original Message - 
From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods


> Just as a general rule, CALEA monitoring is not something that you
> need to--or want to--do at each individual CPE or router.  Likewise,
> although assistance from manufacturors is nice, it is not requisite
> and in some ways may complicate matters since you can end up with
> hundreds of different monitoring nodes and several different
> interfaces unless you have complete uniformity across your network.
>
> Generally, the easiest and most cost effective approach is to place
> taps at key points in your network that give you access to traffic.
> If you backhaul all of your wireless traffic to a central points, a
> single tap at the central point can monitor all of the traffic from
> the wireless cells.
>
> The tapping process itself does not need to be expensive or
> complicated.  Any decent switch (if it doesn't, you probably shouldn't
> be using it to begin with) has some sort of port mirroring built in
> that can easily function as a "tap".  If not, ethernet and fiber taps
> are fairly cheap ($100-$200 or so on the second hand market).  The tap
> can be hooked into a server running tcpdump or similiar software or
> various commercially available.  This provides complete compliance for
> a fairly reasonable cost.  Having a tap on each wireless access point,
> etc...needlessly complicates the whole affair and increases cost
> drastically.
>
> If you are doing backhaul via an Internet T1 or similiar, the upstream
> carrier may be doing some of this for you.  However, you do have to
> analyze carefully to ensure that you are compliant in this situation.
>
> Note that this actually is a good idea to have even without CALEA as
> you can get a good idea as to what traffic is actually running on your
> network and can better track down virus/hackers/other malicious
> traffic.
>
> -
>
> > I have posted a couple of messages over on the Mikrotik forum over the
last
> > month or so. Mikrotik first basically said "why should we care- we are
in
> > Latvia".  After a little pressure from users, they began to ask for more
> > information about the subject.
> >
> > I'm not at all knowledgeable enough to discuss the technical specs of
the
> > format, but I'm sure there are some folks around that are.  Let's get MT
> > users and prospective users rallied and do what we can to ebcourage MT
to
> > comply. It can only help us more and should also create a yardstick for
> > other manufacturers.
> >
> > Here is a link to the threads
> >
> >
http://forum.mikrotik.com/search.php?mode=results&sid=723d81c229563812d900d2
> > 0b3a31a900
> >
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Adam Greene
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:08 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] CALEA compliance methods
> >
> > H

Re: [WISPA] P2P Apps Going Legit?

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Or - shape EVERYTHING.  You don't want limits?  You can easily set a burst
limit, not like a typical one, but using long averages and multiple shapes.
Like for instance:

10M burst, for 10 seconds, then 5M burst for 30 seconds, after that you take
it down to 1-2Mbps for say 30 more seconds.  But you don't tell the customer
this...

On a MT router, I noticed shaping on conventional shared cable broadband -
you can literally watch the shape on a big download.

- Original Message - 
From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] P2P Apps Going Legit?


> Mark Nash wrote:
> > I had a customer tell me yesterday that he uses his Gnutella program to
do unlimited downloads from a paid site.  I've used the Mikrotik routers
(p2p queue set to 64k) to block this and other programs, so it's not working
now for the customer.  I want to allow for paid downloads, but not P2P
filesharing.
>
> The most likely scenario here is the one that's already been mentioned a
> couple times - that your customer, basically, was conned. At this time,
> I don't know of any (legal) services that operate that way.
>
> "At this time" being the key phrase.
>
> Over time, this WILL become an issue. Bram Cohen (the author of the
> popular BitTorrent software) has made deals with a number of media
> centers, such that bittorrent.com is now has a non-trivial amount of
> legal content that users download using P2P software. And there are the
> classic examples like Linux ISOs and archive.org. There were rumors that
> Apple might integrate some kind of P2P software into their iTV (now
> AppleTV) product, to speed the download of purchased programming. I
> don't think anything came of that, but still.
>
> Like it or not, a lot of our customers want to use P2P software, and
> we're basically out of time for the old "everything you do is illegal"
> speech, because that's provably not true any longer. (Yes, it's still
> 95% true, but that's a quibble.)
>
> Generally, I tell users that I really don't care what they're
> downloading, only how they're downloading it. A brief speech on how RF,
> as a shared medium, works, and most customers are at least somewhat
> understanding. (Note: not necessarily "happy," just "understanding.")
>
> As a tangent to this, has anyone deployed a sizeable wireless network
> that uses, say, Mikrotik's M3P or something similar for the end-users?
> If so, does it actually make P2P usable for end-users without making
> everyone's connections feel sluggish?
>
> David Smith
> MVN.net
> -- 
> 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 Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.15/728 - Release Date: 3/20/2007
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I'm sold.  Anyone wanna buy me some?  COMNET has nice pricing on CPE's, but
are there any discounts on the AU's?  There's so many parts it seems between
the blade chassis and that, I don't even know what parts that I'd need to
order.

Also, I was concerned with the blade chassis that 200' of LMR400 would be
too lossy to be useful - or does this have some kind of low frequency IF
signalling that's used on the cable itself?  Some equipment I've noticed
uses a much lower frequency up the tower that even LMR175 could be used.

Can I use this on an non-live, unipole, AM radio tower?

Thanks

- Original Message - 
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...


I found this thread interesting.

Enjoy,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: Patrick Leary
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: [WISP] Sort of OT: Long list of answers...

[...]

  How do the APs handle VoIP traffic?  Is there anything that can assist
  this?

  Better, literally, than any other AP in unlicensed, with up 288 CONCURRENT
VoIP calls per AP (we call them AUs) with a MOS of better than 4.0. With the
WLP feature implemented, MOS is typically over 4.1 and many tests show over
4.4. (I have some great VoIP graphs). We can also run tons of concurrent
data. The graphs show this too.

  What is a realistic number of concurrent VoIP sessions an AP can handle?

  VL is the only product that can literally and dynamically prioritize VoIP
over the entire pipe and across the entire sector (versus just dedicating a
partition that must be allocated whether used or not). At the same time, VL
has a starvation prevention mechanism to prevent starvation of low priority
traffic.


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi

[Doug Ratcliffe]

Maybe it's time to file to be a "library" or school...  I'm not an ISP - I'm
an informational internet research service providing services to students
who are enrolled in our access program.

Ridiculous... this is all ridiculous.

- Original Message - 
From: "Blair Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi


> For about 20% of my users, that is all I can do  packets from/to my
> MESH based towers I can't break down to individual users.  Some of
> them can't even be broken down to individual towers...
>
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
> > I agree.  I see it this way too.  I can't see them forcing CALEA onto
> > hotspot operators like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.  Technically they're a
> > WISP too.  I'll operate my service just like they do.  What about
muni-WIFI?
> > How does CALEA play into that?
> >
> > If this goes the wrong way, I'm going to convert all of my customers to
> > prepaid hotspot users, anonymous (nothing but a card #).  You take the
> > equipment, install it where you want and the most I'm going to know is
that
> > it's on Tower B, Sector 3 and they have a 77% signal.
> >
> > Go find them.
> >
> > - Original Message - 
> > From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:48 PM
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:24:12 -0800, Jack Unger wrote
> >>
> >>> Mark and Butch,
> >>>
> >>> I want to thank both of you.
> >>>
> >>> I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a
> >>> negative turn but I WAS WRONG.
> >>>
> >>> I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications
> >>> to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable.
> >>> I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment
> >>> and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum.
> >>>
> >>> Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my
> >>> mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well.
> >>>
> >>> Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each
> >>> other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule
> >>> of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you again.
> >>> jack
> >>>
> >> Thanks Jack.  Pardon me while I say one last bit on this rant.
> >>
> >> The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're
> >> telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the
DOJ
> >> and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the
> >>
> > funds
> >
> >> to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our
> >> Constitution.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, let them ask US how data extraction works, let US find
> >>
> > ways
> >
> >> it can be done, develop "reasonable" levels we should be required to go
> >> through to attempt to recover the data they want.
> >>
> >> Just like  CALEA did for the telcos,  they can fund the software
changes
> >>
> > and
> >
> >> implementation costs - Let law enforcement come meet us and ask US how
> >>
> > best
> >
> >> to get ahold of data tehy want or need.
> >>
> >> In the meantime, this idea of open-ended demands with obscure
requirements
> >> and almost laughably vague language needs to be tossed down the drain.
> >>
> >> Let them develop ways and means of talking IP to us, let Congress fund
> >>
> > that
> >
> >> research so THEY do the conversions, not us or someone we're supposed
to
> >> freaking PAY to do it for us, and then we need a target of what and how
to
> >> deliver data.
> >>
> >> Yeah, we're going to have to meeet with the FBI and DOJ and develop
> >> reasonable mechanisms... but  it should be them asking US, not us
coming
> >> around with our hat in hand saying "please don't bury us in costs for
some
> >> arcane type of mechanism that's not even workable on our netw

Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi

[Doug Ratcliffe]

I agree.  I see it this way too.  I can't see them forcing CALEA onto
hotspot operators like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.  Technically they're a
WISP too.  I'll operate my service just like they do.  What about muni-WIFI?
How does CALEA play into that?

If this goes the wrong way, I'm going to convert all of my customers to
prepaid hotspot users, anonymous (nothing but a card #).  You take the
equipment, install it where you want and the most I'm going to know is that
it's on Tower B, Sector 3 and they have a 77% signal.

Go find them.

- Original Message - 
From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] calea meeting with the fbi


> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:24:12 -0800, Jack Unger wrote
> > Mark and Butch,
> >
> > I want to thank both of you.
> >
> > I feared that the quality and tone of this discussion was taking a
> > negative turn but I WAS WRONG.
> >
> > I've found your discussion of the CALEA issue and the ramifications
> > to the WISP industry to be interesting, informative and valuable.
> > I'd like to commend both of you gentlemen for having the commitment
> > and the courage to share your opinions in this open forum.
> >
> > Your discussions have helped me to clarify the CALEA issues in my
> > mind. Hopefully it will help others to clarify their thinking as well.
> >
> > Although your political views may not be perfectly identical to each
> > other, I sense that you both respect the Constitution and the Rule
> > of Law and that you both want to do what you believe is correct.
> >
> > Thank you again.
> > jack
>
> Thanks Jack.  Pardon me while I say one last bit on this rant.
>
> The RIGHT way this is to be done, is for the FCC to "un" rule we're
> telecommunications providers, the same for VOIP and so on, and let the DOJ
> and FBI go back to Congress, who re-writes the rules, and supplies the
funds
> to implement whatever it is they really want, and complies with our
> Constitution.
>
> In the meantime, let them ask US how data extraction works, let US find
ways
> it can be done, develop "reasonable" levels we should be required to go
> through to attempt to recover the data they want.
>
> Just like  CALEA did for the telcos,  they can fund the software changes
and
> implementation costs - Let law enforcement come meet us and ask US how
best
> to get ahold of data tehy want or need.
>
> In the meantime, this idea of open-ended demands with obscure requirements
> and almost laughably vague language needs to be tossed down the drain.
>
> Let them develop ways and means of talking IP to us, let Congress fund
that
> research so THEY do the conversions, not us or someone we're supposed to
> freaking PAY to do it for us, and then we need a target of what and how to
> deliver data.
>
> Yeah, we're going to have to meeet with the FBI and DOJ and develop
> reasonable mechanisms... but  it should be them asking US, not us coming
> around with our hat in hand saying "please don't bury us in costs for some
> arcane type of mechanism that's not even workable on our networks" with a
big
> hairy fine as a stick big enough to bury small guys like me.  One single
10K
> fine and i'm bankrupt.  And the rules offer no recourse.  Doesn't actually
> MATTER if you think you comply.  If it doesn't work in the end like they
> want, the fine can be levied anyway and capriciously.  This is wrong
too...
> Vague laws are unconstituional, we all know that.
>
> But most of all, it needs to be voted in Congress.  Let Congress take the
> heat like they should, when they have to  vote to spy on your internet
use -
> and require everyone to be "ready".
>
> This whole thing is a tragedy of spineless beaurocrats.  Congress wrote a
> law, the law was obsolete in a very short period of time, but rather than
get
> Congress to fix its own mess, the DOJ and FBI and FCC are attempting to
> misapply a law, and since they cannot spend federal money without Congress
> voting it for them, they're attempting to dump the cost on us.  The DOJ
> rather than face Congress and public opinion, sought to get a shortcut
from
> the FCC, who rather than demand it be done right, simply sidestepped and
> dumped the responsibility to object UPON US, by writing patently wrong
rules
> that deserve to lose instantly if legally challenged, so THEY didn't have
to
> argue.  And we, ( Yeah, I consider myself guilty ) did not object.  Heck,
we
> DIDNT EVEN KNOW BECAUSE WE WERE NOT LOOKING.
>
> This is wrong on so many levels, it reeks.  What's worse, is that it CAN
lose
> in court, it can be challenged and beaten in court, and if that happens,
then
> literally, the FBI And DOJ are without the legal tools they probably ought
to
> have.
>
> I know, this isn't supposed to be a political list...and I'm not being
> partisan here.  We're businessmen second, after we're citizens.  We SHOULD
> object when stuff is done wrong.  Why do you think Congress appropriated
> money fo

Re: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband

[Doug Ratcliffe]

This is scary:

Also Tuesday, Adelstein urged the FCC to adopt network neutrality rules
designed to prevent broadband providers from potentially blocking or
degrading competing content on their high-speed pipes.


-- Obviously people don't realize that WISPs, unlike conventional ILEC based
DSL and others with peering agreements, have to PAY for bandwidth and just
don't get it by peering.

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Adelstein Blasts White House over Access to Broadband


>
>
> http://njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-NZEO1173296524287.html
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> FCC License # PG-12-25133
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
> Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
> True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
> Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007
>
>

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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