Re: [WISPA] Powercode 477 Data Grossly Inaccurate

[Greg Mingus]

Powercode has been aware of this bug since at least January 6th when I created 
ticket #11362 after we were questioned by the FCC why there were problems with 
our data.

Powercode responded to the ticket 12 days later saying they were going to fix 
it. I forwarded the ticket reply to the FCC and they were apparently satisfied 
with that response.

We have continued submitting the Powercode data because it’s the closest thing 
we have.

-Greg

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:44 AM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Powercode 477 Data Grossly Inaccurate


Even with their methodology being flawed, it is also very broken and only 
listing 10% of the blocks where we have customers.

I did talk with powercode, they have been aware of this bug for a couple 
weeks... I stressed that this is a major issue and they really owe their 
customers to notify them of something like this especially in light of todays 
deadline for submitting revised data. I am sure most powercode users have been 
just submitting the generates files.

On Aug 31, 2016 1:25 PM, "Kameron Blomquist" 
mailto:kame...@sightlinewireless.com>> wrote:
The deployment data is always wrong, you cant just submit that. It just goes 
off of subscriber info.

We got the deployment data from Towercoverage and use the subscriber data from 
PC.



Kameron B.
SightLine Wireless
(503) 967-7222
www.sightlinewireless.com<http://www.sightlinewireless.com>


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Charles Wu 
mailto:cwu...@gmail.com>> wrote:
While I can’t speak directly for PowerCode, I suspect that if you got an 
unsolicited voicemail from them that they probably have someone monitoring this 
list.

-Charles

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] On 
Behalf Of Chris Fabien
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:38 AM
To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org>>
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Powercode 477 Data Grossly Inaccurate


FYI guys I got a voicemail at my office yesterday afternoon from powercode 
confirming they are aware of this issue.

I have not spoken to them yet and I am not sure if they are aware this is a 
time critical issue for some WISP who may have CAF funding becoming available 
for someone to overbuild them due to faulty 477 data.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Adair Winter 
mailto:ada...@amarillowireless.net>> wrote:
I can't tell that anything like that is happening with the plans.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Chris Fabien 
mailto:ch...@lakenetmi.com>> wrote:
I also noticed strange numbers in the speed plans sometimes it would line 
up with a plan that we offered sometimes it would seem to pick a down from one 
plan and an upload that from a different plan.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Adair Winter 
mailto:ada...@amarillowireless.net>> wrote:
That's interesting. so some lines show nothing for and down/up speed.  others 
shows some plan that we have. Is powercode just picking the user with the 
highest plan for the block and displaying that? hmm

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Cameron Crum 
mailto:cc...@wispmon.com>> wrote:
Deployment is your service offerings to the blocks. Basically, what blocks can 
you cover at what speeds and with what technology. Subscription counts actual 
subscribers in tracts.



On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Mike Hammett 
mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Well then. That sucks.


-
Mike Hammett

Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/>


Midwest Internet Exchange


The Brothers WISP
<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>

From: "Chris Fabien" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:11:11 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Powercode 477 Data Grossly Inaccurate
Mike, I should have at least several hundred that actually have subscribers 
that powercode should have included in the CSV.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
How many blocks are your subscribers in?


-
Mike Hammett

Intelligent Computing Solutions


Midwest Internet Exchange


The Brothers WISP

From: "Chris Fabien" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:06:48 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Powercode 477 Data Grossly Inaccurate
Powercode does not have a real coverage map. They do generate the deployment 
.csv file, based upon the assumption of reporting any block in which you have a 
customer as being deployed. That approach will definitely generate incomplete 
results, but I'm seeing a way way worse problem. Powercode was giving us 22 
blocks reported on the deployment CSV, when I did it by hand in GIS software, I 
have 841 blocks. Something seems to be very b

Re: [WISPA] NanoBeam Problems

[Greg Osborn]

I had it happen the other day.  Fresh install, told tech, “hold on, I need to 
update fw”  5 minutes later it hadn’t come back.  Reboot didn’t work.  Couldn’t 
access from our 192.168.100.1 address or the default.  Had to hard reset.  It 
did however, take the upgrade.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 3:11 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] NanoBeam Problems

 

That doesn't seem possible...





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

 

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, timothy steele mailto:timothy.pct...@gmail.com> > wrote:

A nano beam had 5.5.6 on it? That seems strange

—
Sent from Mailbox   

 

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote:

To 5.5.9 no.  Are you using the XW?

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

On Sep 16, 2014 3:00 PM, "Bryce Duchcherer" mailto:bduc...@netago.ca> > wrote:

Anyone else having problems with nanobeams crashing after a firmware update?

It’s starting to be a common occurrence for us.

 

Bryce D

NETAGO

 


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

 


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

 

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

Re: [WISPA] KP Performance vs UBNT Antennas

[Greg Osborn]

UBNT to KPP straight up, kpp.  UBNT with armor vs KPP, we prefer UBNT
because of the extra horizontal separation required with KPP.  On a grainleg
platform, we've seen kpp sectors see one another at -30 or below, where UBNT
see one another in the -50's.  On a tower without standoffs and KPP, forget
it, you will have problems.

2.4 in 10mhz cw.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 11:33 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] KP Performance vs UBNT Antennas

one obvious advantage with the KPP is that the connectors or all covered by
the shielding, so you eliminate any potential issues with water in the
connectors, and you can throw away that annoying cover on the Rocket over
the ethernet port.

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [wireless-boun...@wispa.org] on behalf of
Sam [w...@csilogan.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:07 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] KP Performance vs UBNT Antennas

Mathew, these are for 2. GHz Rockets.

I was wondering about the shielding as well. Unless you're in an area with a
ton of interference...  But as was mentioned, the KP omni with the shielding
is the same price basically as the same UBNT model without it. I'm all about
using stuff that's included at no additional charge :)


On 8/28/2014 10:00, Mathew Howard wrote:
> I haven't used any KPP omnis, but I have used several different brands of
dual polarity omnis and I haven't really seen any notable difference in
performance between any of them.
>
> Are you looking at 2.4ghz or 5ghz?
>
> Is there really a lot of benefit to shielding the radio with an omni? it
seems somewhat pointless to me...
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [wireless-boun...@wispa.org] on 
> behalf of Sam [w...@csilogan.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 9:29 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] KP Performance vs UBNT Antennas
>
> That's a great point. Thank you Andy. How about differences in 
> performance between the two? Big difference? Negligible?
>
> Thanks
> Sam
>
>
>
> On 8/28/2014 09:18, Andy Trimmell wrote:
>> I think the big plus with the KP antennas is they come with a cover 
>> for the rocket. You'll have to buy a RF Elements cover if you're 
>> using stock Rockets with stock UBNT antennas.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Sam
>> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 9:29 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] KP Performance vs UBNT Antennas
>>
>> I am hoping to find someone who has used both UBNT and KP Performance 
>> antennas (with Rockets) who would be willing to share their 
>> experiences of one vs the other. For this project I'm specifically 
>> looking at 13 dBi omni antennas, but am curious about how the sector 
>> antennas compare as well.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sam
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>

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

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

[Greg Osborn]

I don’t believe that to be most everyone’s gripe.  Internet and transport are 
cheap in comparison to backhaul and the labor required to implement.  We have 
around 250 links, if you take Netflix out of the equation, you are not chasing 
your tail upgrading them all the time.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 1:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

 

You don't need NetFlix to pay you for a fast lane...  just meet them in their 
dozen or so facilities and get it for free instead of paying for it. Other than 
that, I agree with you.



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

   
  
  
 



  _  

From: "Joe Fiero" mailto:joe1...@optonline.net> >
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 12:15:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality, The beginning of the end

I don’t comment all that often here, but very much pay attention to the voices 
of experience.  On Net Neutrality, I have plenty to say.  As with most of my 
FCC comments, what I filed 2 weeks ago with them went against the grain.  I am 
a purist who has been in telecom since I repaired my first CB radio for a 
neighbor at the age of 14.  I helped launch Metromedia’s cellular system in NY, 
 a company I was a part owner in was the first acquisition of Fleetcall in NY 
City.  Anyone as old as me would remember that Fleetcall became NexTel, and for 
the real youngsters, they were acquired by Sprint for what turned out to be a 
total write-off of $35 billion in December of 2004.  I have been using 
unlicensed radio to link communications sites since long before it went 
digital.  

 

One thing my experience and observations have taught me is that nothing 
promotes innovation like free market.  We need not look beyond our own industry 
to prove that.  When no one would service 40% of America, we collectively built 
an industry that matured into a recognized and respected market sector.   I was 
involved in the previous formation of an industry that is both parallel and 
intertwined with WISPS, that of home satellite television. 

 

Back in the mid 1970’s a band of tenacious, adventurous experimenters took 
handfuls of surplus junk and built home earth stations.  In short order we went 
from being pirates and thieves to an established medium to reach rural America. 
 It wasn’t long before the big money found us and pushed us out of the way.  We 
went from a place where we could make a respectable income to being lackeys for 
DirecTV and DISH who generously paid us a few dollars to do the job and then 
gave us a big residual of 50 cents to about two dollars, on subscribers that 
ARPU of $100 or more.

 

WISPs have been struggling to keep up with the Netflix demand since they went 
to Internet delivery in 2009.  Systems big and small quickly found their choke 
points.  And like in highway design, if you upgrade one intersection, the 
traffic jam just moves to the next unimproved intersection.  The problem is, 
unlike the highway department, we don’t run on tax revenue.  We have to charge 
subscribers for a service that is both fair and responsive to their needs.

 

The SPRINT concept in the article is the most fair and responsible way to 
assure that our infrastructure can meet the demand, and that those creating the 
demand are the ones paying for it.  The FCC needs to stop cow-towing to the 
illiterate public who are still touting that they need to “protect the FREE 
Internet”.  Who gets this for free?  If you are in a coffee shop, the 
proprietor is paying for it.  Public Wi-Fi is advertising or tax subsidized.  
Do we get power, water, heating for free?  

 

Ten years ago we projected a mass movement from the PSTN to VoIP.  Even the 
industry experts never predicted a loss of 48% of copper lines in 10 years.  
What was built up over a century dissipated in the blink of an eye.  We are 
again on the cusp of a shift in the paradigm that will see cable and satellite 
users shift to Internet based delivery on any device they desire.  The same 
dramatic reduction witnessed in copper phone lines awaits the traditional 
Multichannel marketplace.  And along with the big guns, we are on the front 
line.  We will be expected to deliver copious amounts of data to subscribers as 
they stream HD video and music to multiple devices in their homes and offices.  

 

We, the WISP industry, need to step up our game if we are going to remain part 
of this.  We are going to have to emulate the cellular industry with frequency 
reuse like we never imagined.  We are going to have to replace our older radios 
with ones that can deliver the required bandwidth, an

Re: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

[Greg Osborn]

Yes we are.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

 

Are you actually using this?  No releases since 2006 =/





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

 

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Greg Osborn mailto:gregwosb...@gmail.com> > wrote:

http://timeclock.sourceforge.net/

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>  
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org> ] On 
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

 

Do you know of any?  Need it Android compatible, this is the real world =)





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

 

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Gino Villarini mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> > wrote:

Smartphone app

 

 

 

Gino A. Villarini

President

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

www.aeronetpr.com <http://www.aeronetpr.com>

@aeronetpr

 

 

 

From: Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >
Reply-To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >
Date: Monday, June 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM
To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >


Subject: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

 

Does anyone have a quick and easy product for a time clock?  We're doing it by 
hand now and it feels like too much time is being wasted.



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


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

 


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

 

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

Re: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

[Greg Osborn]

http://timeclock.sourceforge.net/

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

 

Do you know of any?  Need it Android compatible, this is the real world =)





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

 

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Gino Villarini mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com> > wrote:

Smartphone app

 

 

 

Gino A. Villarini

President

Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.

www.aeronetpr.com 

@aeronetpr

 

 

 

From: Josh Luthman mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >
Reply-To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >
Date: Monday, June 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM
To: WISPA General List mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >


Subject: [WISPA] Easiest time clock for part timers

 

Does anyone have a quick and easy product for a time clock?  We're doing it by 
hand now and it feels like too much time is being wasted.



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


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

 

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

[WISPA] FW: package ideas

[Greg Osborn]

I forgot, per square mile (or whatever measure of area you want to use)….

 

From: Greg Osborn [mailto:gregwosb...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 12:14 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] package ideas

 

It’s gotta make dollars to make sense…..  You might have to explain that the 
cable/telcos don’t come for them for that reason.  If they can’t get a high 
take rate per square mile (or whatever measure of area you want to use), they 
can’t make money either.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>  
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of wi...@mncomm.com 
<mailto:wi...@mncomm.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 5:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] package ideas

 

is that something you’ve done and people pay for that? I need to do some market 
research for these customers. A lot of customers are “stuck” with me, might 
leave a bad taste when in town customers can get 30 meg for $50 or so a month. 
I have customers beating me for more speeds but I have a lot that think they 
are getting robbed at what they get now LOL

 

  

From: John Thomas <mailto:jtho...@quarnet.com>  

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:51 PM

To: WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>  

Subject: Re: [WISPA] package ideas

 

How about adding 5 Meg at $79, then 10 Meg at $109?



wi...@mncomm.com <mailto:wi...@mncomm.com>  wrote:

So, I am going to be twisting on the owners soon. I need to start offering 
different packages to our customers, getting tired of people wanting more 
speed. If they want more than everyone they need to pay for it. So, aside from 
special instances, the vast majority of our subs pay $45 per month for 
unlimited usage. No real statement on speed, but typically we set most to a 
stream of 1.6 meg or so, enough where they can run Netflix in basic definition 
with no buffering. We have some set to a little more depending on needs. If I 
can get by they usually get 512 up & down with some bursting, but those are far 
and few between with streaming media. 

 

I was thinking of setting all of those users to 1.5 or 2 meg for the $45 and 
jumping to a 5 meg package for $69 per month. I currently charge most 
businesses $69, they may not get much more speed just expedited service from us 
if they have issues. I was also thinking, if I can stretch it out, to 10 meg 
for $100 a month.

 

We are negotiating for more bandwidth from our upstream shortly, I believe our 
towers are capable of of meeting these needs for the most part. If not I am 
hoping the prospect of selling more will offset the additional upgrade costs

 

I figure if only 10 percent of the $45 customers upgraded to $69 it would 
generate an additional $50k a year.

 

Anyways I wanted to throw it out to you folks to see what they have experienced 
in doing similar situations. I am sure I will get some back lash from certain 
areas where a competitor might be able to do something better or cheaper or 
customers that want it all for nothing, the ones who think they are getting 
screwed anyways

 

heith

  _  

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

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

Re: [WISPA] package ideas

[Greg Osborn]

It’s gotta make dollars to make sense…..  You might have to explain that the 
cable/telcos don’t come for them for that reason.  If they can’t get a high 
take rate, they can’t make money either.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of wi...@mncomm.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 5:25 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] package ideas

 

is that something you’ve done and people pay for that? I need to do some market 
research for these customers. A lot of customers are “stuck” with me, might 
leave a bad taste when in town customers can get 30 meg for $50 or so a month. 
I have customers beating me for more speeds but I have a lot that think they 
are getting robbed at what they get now LOL

 

  

From: John Thomas   

Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:51 PM

To: WISPA General List   

Subject: Re: [WISPA] package ideas

 

How about adding 5 Meg at $79, then 10 Meg at $109?



wi...@mncomm.com   wrote:

So, I am going to be twisting on the owners soon. I need to start offering 
different packages to our customers, getting tired of people wanting more 
speed. If they want more than everyone they need to pay for it. So, aside from 
special instances, the vast majority of our subs pay $45 per month for 
unlimited usage. No real statement on speed, but typically we set most to a 
stream of 1.6 meg or so, enough where they can run Netflix in basic definition 
with no buffering. We have some set to a little more depending on needs. If I 
can get by they usually get 512 up & down with some bursting, but those are far 
and few between with streaming media. 

 

I was thinking of setting all of those users to 1.5 or 2 meg for the $45 and 
jumping to a 5 meg package for $69 per month. I currently charge most 
businesses $69, they may not get much more speed just expedited service from us 
if they have issues. I was also thinking, if I can stretch it out, to 10 meg 
for $100 a month.

 

We are negotiating for more bandwidth from our upstream shortly, I believe our 
towers are capable of of meeting these needs for the most part. If not I am 
hoping the prospect of selling more will offset the additional upgrade costs

 

I figure if only 10 percent of the $45 customers upgraded to $69 it would 
generate an additional $50k a year.

 

Anyways I wanted to throw it out to you folks to see what they have experienced 
in doing similar situations. I am sure I will get some back lash from certain 
areas where a competitor might be able to do something better or cheaper or 
customers that want it all for nothing, the ones who think they are getting 
screwed anyways

 

heith

  _  

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?

[Greg Osborn]

http://happyterminals.com/product_info.php?products_id=1019 

 &osCsid=4c7038e96bab9eb6637e10cd008121b3

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of timothy steele
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 7:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?

 

You must have no wind or cold or you like doing service calls 

—
Sent from Mailbox   

 

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Ben West mailto:b...@gowasabi.net> > wrote:

Thanks for the zip tie recommendations, i.e. preferred T&B over generic.  Yes, 
hose clamps would be ideal, although I'm not mounting things to towers, only on 
rooftops.  Generally just Nanos, so little loading.

 

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Mike Hammett mailto:wispawirel...@ics-il.net> > wrote:

That still applies...

 



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

   
  
  
 


  _  


From: "Blair Davis" mailto:the...@wmwisp.net> >
To: "WISPA General List" mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >

Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 8:45:25 PM


Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?

That's it.  I don't use 5GHz for last mile.  Only backhaul.  Too many trees.

--



On 4/28/2014 9:35 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I can't think of a place for the PowerBridge. Just get an antenna with an 
integrated enclosure and put the Rocket inside. That likely costs you less, 
cheaper to replace and has 5.4 GHz.



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

   
  
  
 


  _  


From: "Blair Davis"   
To: "WISPA General List"   
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 7:23:36 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?

Because NanoStation's, Loco's, Rocket dishes, PowerBridges and NanoBeams all 
have a place depending on what you are doing?

Even AirGrids and Bullets have value for some things

--

On 4/28/2014 7:05 PM, timothy steele wrote:

Don't the nano beams come with hose clamps? Why still using the nano stations? 

—
Sent from Mailbox   

 

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Joe Fiero mailto:joe1...@optonline.net> > wrote:

 

+1

 

One clamp, about a buck can save many service calls. 

 

Just because they put them in the box, it doesn’t mean you have to use them.  
Save them for the wiring and you get money back toward the hose clamp!

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org   
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of ~NGL~
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 6:19 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?

 

Why not use stainless hose clamps.

NGL

From: Josh Luthman   

Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 3:14 PM

To: WISPA General List   

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Favorite replacement for UBNT zip ties?

 

Those have never seemed like a good idea so I never tried them.

I have a local source for cheap ties - wintronic aka WinElectric.  For good 
tower ties I love the T&B.

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

On Apr 28, 2014 5:51 PM, "Ben West" mailto:b...@gowasabi.net> > wrote:

Apologies for the mundane question.  Anyone have a preferred brand / source for 
replacements for the ~12" plastic zip ties that UBNT packages with their AirMax 
gear?

Zip ties of similar thickness from the usual suspects (e.g. Home Depot or 
Lowes) seem to only be 36" or longer, and their thinner ties embrittle too 
easily in sunlight.



-- 
Ben West 

b...@gowasabi.net  


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


  _  


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





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

 

-- 
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan  49010
269-686-8648  
 
A Division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC


___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org  
ht

Re: [WISPA] Roku 3 Wifi Interference

[Greg Osborn]

I have a Roku HD and it uses 5.8 for the remote, not 2.4.  I don't believe
the roku can connect to 5.8 for an internet connection.  I could be wrong,
my wife lets me know at least once a day ;) !

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Reynolds
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Roku 3 Wifi Interference

 

Weird. We give away rokus to our new setups, but not the roku3.

On another note, I bought an amazon fire tv for the house to see how well it
would stream, and I wonder if it's remote is wifi... never checked.

 

Josh Reynolds
Chief Information Officer
SPITwSPOTS
j...@spitwspots.com   | www.spitwspots.com

On 04/18/2014 06:08 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:

Has anyone run into this yet? 

The Roku 3 uses it's own dedicated wifi network to communicate with the
remote control. If the roku is connected to the customer's wifi router to
get online, the remote wifi will always use the same channel and cause
interference with other wifi devices. 

We just had an install today where the router was hearing the interfering
SSID from the roku at a -22. And as you might expect the wifi performance
was garbage. 

Just one more thing to look out for and cause support headaches. 

The workaround is to plug in the roku via ethernet, which will make it use
the 5ghz band to talk to remote - of course that might interfere with your
5ghz CPE now. 

Are IR remotes really all that bad? 








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

 

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

Re: [WISPA] possible frozen antenna

[Greg Osborn]

I’ve seen UBNT omnis do this.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:20 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] possible frozen antenna

 

They get condensation in them and they can leak down into the RF connector.  
Just had one in here that was taken down that was leaking.  Visually looked 
perfect.

 

Steve Barnes

General Manager

PCSWIN.com

Howard LLC.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org   
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of heith petersen
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:58 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] possible frozen antenna

 

http://www.l-com.com/wireless-antenna-24-ghz-15-dbi-omnidirectional-antenna-n-female-connector

 

I have attached a link for an antenna we commonly use on our Canopy PMP100 2.4 
Omnis. I have an issue with an AP where everyone has decent signal but 
throughput is suffering (decent down capacity, crappy up capacity). Usually I 
have never had ice on these antennas. I did however use to have an icing issue 
on a smoother 5.7 AP 4 winters ago where I de-iced a few times a day, maybe a 
total of 20 times that season, on the same tower. This antenna has a rough 
texture, but I have never, that I know of, had an ice issue on it before. I 
have a guy trying to determine from the ground if he can detect ice, but it’s a 
175 foot climb. It’s a better day than today to climb for sure

 

anyways, just curious if others who may use this antenna has had the issue

 

thanks

heith

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: Antenna Array Suggestions

[Greg Osborn]

In our experience the KPP sectors don’t work as well without horizontal
separation.  Of course you could try to vertically separate them also, but
that isn’t really an option at this site.  Using UBNT radios with 3 kpp
sectors, you can expect the radios to see one another at about -1 to -15,
depending on the variance of each scan.  With UBNT sectors and RF armor, you
can expect the radios to see one another at around -28 to -35.  In order to
achieve the -30 db range with KPP, we have to put them in separate corners
of a grainleg platform. While the signal from the CPE might not be as good,
you get better performance at worse signals.  So a -75 performs like a -68.
(signal from CPE, at AP)

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Vince West
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 11:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Antenna Array Suggestions

 

Heith,

 

If you plan to use Canopy PMP100 2.4Ghz, I would recommend doing ABAB
instead of ABC. Paired with 90° sectors from KPP I have found work well. You
leave some (although not much) flexibility with keeping channel 6 unused for
other APs located in the area (not exclusive and there is always an
exception). Running in ABC could cause issues as you have less options for
channel switching. The advantage of GPS Sync in the 2.4Ghz band I believe to
be a better choice over UBNT, especially if your area around this site is
also Canopy (with GPS Sync).

 

Clay also has a good point about the 5Ghz. Adding this (depending on
deployments around the area) for your existing customer base for eligible
subscribers. This is ideal for LOS clients and will give you some more
wiggle room on your 2.4Ghz APs.

 

I can't speak on UBNT 900Mhz because I haven't ever touched it. Canopy
900Mhz is really all I have worked with. The 3Mbps aggregate bandwidth is a
turn off for most people, but again, GPS sync on a band that propagates
extremely well and is sensitive to interference trumps overall aggregate
bandwidth in my opinion. But it is regional. Someone with a low 900Mhz noise
floor and little sources of interference will have a different experience.
Quality of the service versus aggregate bandwidth is never a question. We do
run one MT 900Mhz AP with an XR9 that has proved to perform extremely well,
but it is rather isolated from the rest of the 900Mhz we run.

 

Can Canopy and UBNT exist together? In the areas where we have only Canopy,
we have not had much luck deploying MT/UBNT. The Canopy destroys the OFDM
technologies. YMMV.

 

I like the KPP products. As I upgrade towers I have been replacing UBNT and
PAC/Laird sectors. We only run 900Mhz in h-pol, and the KPP 900Mhz antennas
are great because they aren't huge due to the lack of a vertical polarity.
However, KPP antennas and Canopy PMP100 is going to put a noticeable dent in
your wallet.

 

Good luck with your upgrade! I hope all goes well!!

 

Vince

 

 

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 10:38 PM, heith petersen mailto:wi...@mncomm.com> > wrote:

On the 900 more or less just bandwidth throughput to a few customers, more
or less wanting more than I can give. This antenna is the stocker UBNT
panel. I never thought about someone like KP Performance. Is that what you’d
suggest?  These customers, obviously, were on my 2.4 before and can easily
go back, providing I get them the bandwidth. This one was more or less a
test for an area I have never tried 900 before.

 

On the Titanium sectors, I hear a lot of mixed emotions about them. I
installed one at a location we are testing and its not working out well,
however I believe its jammed in a highly intense 2.4 area as it is.

 

You think the Canopy and UBNT 2.4 can co exist together until equipment is
swapped out? I have a buddy that installed 1 ubnt sector right below a
canopy omni as a test and has been running for close to 3 years. One of
those projects that never got finished

 

heith

 

From: Clay Stewart   

Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 9:13 PM

To: WISPA General List   

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: Antenna Array Suggestions

 

I would place the smaller Rocket M5 UBNT Titanium sectors, along with Rocket
M2 Titanium sectors. As for your issue with the UBNT 900 I would need more
detail... stats such as signal/NF/CCQ etc... would be good. That is an
unshielded 900 and can be taken down or hurt fairly easily. Shielding on the
900 is almost a must. There are also other possible solutions for reducing
windload for that 900 as well.

 

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:08 PM, heith petersen mailto:wi...@mncomm.com> > wrote:



I was looking for a suggestion on 3 120 degree panels for the tower in the
picture. I have a connectorized Canopy 2.4 Omni on top at 60 foot, and its
overloaded, in my opinion, with 73 subs. I am debating on throwing on a UBNT
M5 panel in higher concentration area of current subs, however they are on
the other side of the river and an average

Re: [WISPA] 2 of 2 tower down

[Greg Osborn]

Yes, both sites were sites acquired  from other wisps.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Rick Harnish
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:59 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2 of 2 tower down

 

I don't recognize either of those towers.  They must have been new builds
after I sold the company.

 

Rick

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org <mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Greg Osborn
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:44 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] 2 of 2 tower down

 

 

 

--

Thank you,


Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989
 <http://www.facebook.com/onlyinternet>   <http://www.twitter.com/oibw>
<http://www.onlyinternet.net/> 

 

 

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

Re: [WISPA] 1 of 2 towers down for good

[Greg Osborn]

We inherited the site through acquisition and it is only a direct connect, I
believe we can service from the rail.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of CBB - Jay Fuller
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:54 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 1 of 2 towers down for good

 

 

Wow...I am saving the pictures for prosperity...or future advertising for
our disaster relief arm

 

internet - served straight to the devil  : /

 

do you guys need some help?  Look like the structures they were on are still
good, just going to

be replacing a lot of rohn 25?

- Original Message - 

From: Greg Osborn <mailto:gregwosb...@gmail.com>  

To: 'WISPA General List' <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>  

Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 1:22 PM

Subject: [WISPA] 1 of 2 towers down for good

 

More pictures to come when I get them for the second site.

 

--

Thank you,


Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989
 <http://www.facebook.com/onlyinternet>   <http://www.twitter.com/oibw>
<http://www.onlyinternet.net/> 

 


  _  


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

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

Re: [WISPA] 1 of 2 towers down for good

[Greg Osborn]

This one was in Bristol, Indiana 

 

2 of 2 was in Marion, IN 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 2:31 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] 1 of 2 towers down for good

 

Is this near or about Bluffton, Indiana?





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

 

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Greg Osborn mailto:gregwosb...@gmail.com> > wrote:

More pictures to come when I get them for the second site.

 

--

Thank you,


Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989  
 <http://www.facebook.com/onlyinternet>   <http://www.twitter.com/oibw>
<http://www.onlyinternet.net/> 

 


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

 

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

[WISPA] Items for sale

[Greg Osborn]

1 - Unifi Outdoor+ $150
http://www.balticnetworks.com/ubiquiti-unifi-ap-outdoor-2-4ghz.html  (not in
stock anywhere)

 

5 - UBNT 900 Nanobridges $100 each

 

1 - PTP 500 Complete link WB3850AA
http://www.doubleradius.com/Products/Point-to-Point_7/Motorola-5-8-GHz-52-Mb
ps-Connectorised-Backhaul-Link-Complete.html Never deployed in the box with
licenses and keys (lite license)  $6,000

 

Shipping included

 

Please respond off list.

--

Thank you,


Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989
 <http://www.facebook.com/onlyinternet>   <http://www.twitter.com/oibw>
<http://www.onlyinternet.net/> 

 

 

 

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

Re: [WISPA] WISP Industry Growth Rate

[Greg Osborn]

Too broad of a question really.  Here in Indiana, there isn't much low
hanging fruit left to chase.   Beyond telcos, cellcos, and cable, there are
multiple wisps to compete against.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 10:43 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] WISP Industry Growth Rate

Hi All,

I'd appreciate your help.

We are trying to find a good number for the WISP industry annual growth
rate.  I've seen a number of 4%, but that was just for the really big
carriers.

Does anyone know of a source?


Regards,

Jeff


Jeff Broadwick
Bitlomat Sales Director
847-238-2481 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
www.bitlomat.com
https://www.facebook.com/Bitlomat
http://www.linkedin.com/company/bitlomat




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

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

Re: [WISPA] Rocket M2 Questioin

[Greg Osborn]

We are limiting to 30 with 10mhz cw.  Packages from 1m/256k to 3m/768k.  
Somewhere around there, we start getting complaints.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Clay Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 12:27 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rocket M2 Questioin

 

We have up to 40, although more may be done, just do not have any locations 
going above this range at this time.

 

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM, ~NGL~ mailto:n...@ngl.net> > 
wrote:

How many clients are you associating to a Rocket M2?

Thanx

NGL




If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!


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





 

-- 


-- 
SCS 
  Clay Stewart 
  CEO, Tye River Farms, Inc., 
  DBA Stewart Computer Services   
  434.263.6363 O 
  434.942.6510 C
  cstew...@stewartcomputerservices.com 
   
“We Keep You Up and Running” 
   Wireless Broadband
   Programming
  Network Services

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

Re: [WISPA] Windows XP

[Greg Osborn]

It works itself out……

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eCd6xUSik

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 5:32 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Windows XP

 

Well, it won't be working for long if they don't upgrade.



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

 

  _  

From: "Blair Davis" mailto:the...@wmwisp.net> >
To: memb...@wispa.org  , "WISPA General List" 
mailto:wireless@wispa.org> >
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2013 11:09:39 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Windows XP

Windows XP security updates end in April 2014.

Windows XP usage still above 30%.

Is there anything we, as ISP's, can do to protect our users who, for 
whatever reason have not, will not or can not upgrade?

I have users who won't spend $$ to replace a working system if they 
don't see a good reason to.


--
West Michigan Wireless ISP
Allegan, Michigan 49010
269-686-8648

A Division of:
Camp Communication Services, INC
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org  
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

 

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

Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

[Greg Osborn]

To make the ubnt 900 work, Mike, you would need one of those sat dishes from 
the early 80’s.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:32 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

 

How would it be impossible?

These calcs aren't going to be able to factor in the foliage loss because of 
how variable it is. We'll just use 5 miles of free space as the loss.

Rocket + UBNT sector as the AP and a NanoBridge as the CPE.

AP -> CPE = -63
CPE -> AP = -61

Now if we had antenna of the same gain in 900 as I'm using in 5 GHz (18 AP, 25 
CPE)

AP -> CPE = -49
CPE -> AP = -56

So I guess its not as optimistic as I thought because of the PtP rule in 5 GHz, 
but in the downstream direction (AP - CPE), we're 14 is dB better and CPE to AP 
we're 5 dB.

Manufacturers, give us bigger antenna!



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

 

  _  

From: "Erik Anderson" mailto:erik.ander...@hocking.net> >
To: wireless@wispa.org  
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:16:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

With Cambium, we have connections that are stable at -82 dB.

We have a backup backhaul for a tower that is about 5 miles. One ridge in 
between towers must have trees that interfere with freznel zone. Towers are 
200'. Originally had a Cambium 900 with 6 foot single polarity yagis. It worked 
for emergencies in most situations (sometimes rain or snow would interfere). 
Put in UBNT with UBNT dual polarity yagis. Bandwidth available is slightly 
lower than the Cambium.

>From what I have experienced with UBNT 900, it works marginally better than 
>2.4 with tree penetration. Cambium 900 actually does work, even without 
>freznel zone clearance at times. There are many situations it will not work, 
>but it will reach 50% more of the households than UBNT.

As for interference, I have mounted a Cambium 900 SM with the UBNT dual 
polarity with 40 foot horizontal separation without interference (for testing 
purposes, not real world implementation). It did work.

GPS sync is better. I have two horizontal 900 omnis and 1 vertical omni mounted 
with less than 12" of horizontal separation on a tower using Cambium (no 
sectors will not work in this situation, and additional tower space is not 
available). It works. 

We have a tower currently with a 900 backhaul and 900 ap for distribution. Sync 
makes this possible. When we raise the tower another 100 feet this 900 backhaul 
will go away. 2.4/5.x do not work on this. A few 80+ foot trees (somewhere) are 
the problem

Yes, the smartmeter usage of 900 spectrum is problematic around here and they 
seem to be a 919 mhz center channel. Using channels higher than 915 becomes 
more difficult.

This is why I state that UBNT 900 is not good. Increasing signal by 15 dB is 
IMPOSSIBLE for our situations... well, legally that is.

On 8/22/2013 10:14 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

Almost every time someone has detailed their installations to me, there just 
isn't enough signal to do anything. They're getting a -76 and wondering why it 
doesn't work. Increase that another 15 dB and try again. The Canopy will work a 
little better because it requires less signal, but it also has nowhere near the 
same throughput, so they're really apples and oranges.



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

 


  _  


From: "Josh Luthman"   

To: "WISPA General List"   
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:20:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas

Ubnt 900 apparently has extremely poor nlos for 900 MHz.  I've heard
this a handful of people but haven't tried it myself.

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


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Mike Hammett  
  wrote:
> How is it junk? IIRC, everyone I've asked that claimed a given 900 MHz
> system was junk had a poor RF environment.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> From: "Erik Anderson"   
> 
> To: "WISPA General List"   
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 8:49:55 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Latest trend for heavy wooded areas
>
> 98% of our terrain is heavily wooded. Ubiquiti 900 is junk (but their other
> products perform quite well when they can be used). Cambium 900 is better.
> Out limited experience with whitespace has been good. All of these
> technologies have very low bandwidth.
>
> On 8/22/2013 12:04 AM, Chris Fabien wrote:
>
> What are you guys deploying lately in heavily wooded areas? We've used both
> Cambium pmp320 Wimax and UBNT M900, with mixed results on both. We just put
> u

Re: [WISPA] Need small non-penetrating roof mount for single Nanostation + 5ft mast

[Greg Osborn]

This was a vendor at Covington.  $60 seems much more reasonable.
https://www.perfect-10.tv/WebStore/ProductList.aspx?pcID=64

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of wi...@metrocom.ca
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 7:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Need small non-penetrating roof mount for single
Nanostation + 5ft mast

We try to stick to White Rock hens just to keep things standardized. No one
likes to have a back order on a fowl delay things.


Ben West  wrote ..
> If you need, here is a close up of that 3foot tripod screwed down to 
> the treated lumber base:
> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uy-dmEYKRic/TMY7XkHK6RI/AI4
> /tuJvBzKGcug/w909-h682-no/roof_tripod_base_small.jpg
> 
> I think those are 1/4" lag screws and washers.  The hen is optional.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Joshua Zukerman  wrote:
> 
> > I like what you did here:
> > https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uSvf_bhcyXE/TMY6GYrz3HI/A
> > Io/5ErZI4Y93D4/w560-h746-no/wasabinet_bolita_small.jpg
> > I sort of had that thought in my mind already, but couldn't envision 
> > how to make a bottom piece to hold down the tripod. Now that I see a 
> > photo, I may run with this design.
> > I can get the tripods and masts locally, plus a quick trip to the 
> > lumber store to pick up pressure treated lumber and a couple of cement
blocks.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Ben West  wrote:
> >
> >> For ultra low-cost non-penetrating roof mounts, I've been playing 
> >> around with J-Bars salvaged from discarded Dish TV equipment, 
> >> mounted to a base made from scrap treated lumber and weighted down 
> >> with cinderblocks.  Then, I mate a vertical length of EMT conduit, 
> >> 1/2" or better yet 3/4", using a couple conduit hangers.
> >>
> >> http://goo.gl/ojvZu0
> >> http://goo.gl/6Wu0My
> >>
> >> Maybe this can give you a general idea, although this would 
> >> definitely have a conspicuous DIY look.  (I just try to make these 
> >> things in batch, to conserve on labor.)
> >>
> >> I should note the latter photo, which might be of the most interest 
> >> to you, is now out of date.  The wood beams making up the base were 
> >> rearranged into a "V" shape for more width, with a metal brace 
> >> spanning the mouth of the "V" for stiffness.  Likewise the 24inch 
> >> vertical mast was replaced with a completely straight section of 
> >> EMT, instead of that weird zig-zag piece I originally happened to have
lying around.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Joshua Zukerman
wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello list,
> >>>
> >>> I am setting up a PtP link between two gas stations for a client. 
> >>> I am going to be using two Nanostation M5 units going about 1/2mi 
> >>> diagonally across a highway. I'd like to mount them to a 5ft mast 
> >>> then to a non-penetrating roof mount, as the only place with clear 
> >>> line-of-sight is on the roof of both gas stations. Flat roof 
> >>> without much of a lip to mount an antenna to. All of my Google 
> >>> searches come up with much larger non-penetrating roof mounts, 3' 
> >>> or wider, which are designed for much larger and taller masts. Also
very pricey, $150 or more each.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone make a small non-penetrating roof mount, say 2ft 
> >>> square out of metal with an attachment to hold a 5ft mast or including
a 5ft mast?
> >>> Maybe a single cinder/cement block to weigh it down would be all 
> >>> that is needed. Won't ever need to go higher.
> >>>
> >>> Or do you have another suggestion for mounting?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>
> >>> Josh
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wireless mailing list
> >>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ben West
> >> http://gowasabi.net
> >> b...@gowasabi.net
> >> 314-246-9434
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > Wireless mailing list
> > Wireless@wispa.org
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Ben West
> http://gowasabi.net
> b...@gowasabi.net
> 314-246-9434

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

Re: [WISPA] More than 32 clients on Bullet2 HP

[Greg Osborn]

Bridge it and us a Mikrotik router for ACL

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of ~NGL~
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 6:53 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] More than 32 clients on Bullet2 HP

 

How do I add more than 32 Client on a Bullet2 HP. At 32 the add button is
greyed out.

Thanx'

NGL




If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!

 

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

Re: [WISPA] Waterproofing the NanoBridge

[Greg Osborn]

We do the same.  If you are looking for a good deal on them, the best I've
ever found is at Happy Terminals.  About $0.60 each after shipping when you
buy 100.

 

http://happyterminals.com/product_info.php?products_id=1019
 &osCsid=33570493a0dce8d16828221859b8bc3d

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:58 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Waterproofing the NanoBridge

 

First off they're black now.  Have been for some time.

Secondly, who uses zip ties outdoors?!

I have a radio on the roof pointing home.  I just went up there today to
look at our stuff and saw it had rotated 90 off.  Using two of those zip
ties.  Turns out it happened around Christmas, but today I hose clamped it
as it should be.

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

On Apr 16, 2013 6:51 PM, "ralph" mailto:ralphli...@bsrg.org> > wrote:

Oops, I typed all this up before I read the OP again and saw it was about
NanoBridges and not NanoStations.

But I was proud of it, so I'm sending it anyway. lol

 

 

 

The first step in waterproofing the NanoStation is:

 

NEVER, NEVER, EVER, EVER use that stupid white wire tie they come with to
mount it!

The foil tape holding it folded is worth more that the wire tie itself.
Come to think of it, I should have gotten a roll of the foil tape and used
it for mounting.

 

If you use the white one, you will be back in 3 years and the Nano will be
hanging upside down by its wire, filled with water.

 

 

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org 
[mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org  ] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:15 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Waterproofing the NanoBridge

 

I know we've seen it with our limited Picos and Nanobridges.  The sticker
covering the LED hole lets water in =(




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

 

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Matt Hoppes mailto:mhop...@indigowireless.com> > wrote:

Say what?  NanoBridges are pretty much an all-in-one piece of plastic...
shouldn't be anything to water proof.


Matt Hoppes
Director of Information Technology
Indigo Wireless
+1 (570) 723-7312  


On 4/16/13 1:08 PM, ~NGL~ wrote:
> Because of the problems I have had with the Bullets, I wonder if there
> is any thing I should do to waterproof  the NB's?
> Thanx
> NGL

>   If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
>
>
>

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

 


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

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

Re: [WISPA] Customer having trouble with Facebook

[Greg Osborn]

I would agree, this is probably it.  Someone has been racing the delorean
again.

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan Ghering
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2013 3:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer having trouble with Facebook

 

Tell him to fix the time  and date on his PC lol. 

 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Scott Reed mailto:sr...@nwwnet.net> > wrote:

I have a customer that when he tries to go to most any facebook page
gets a certificate expired page.
Any idea what he needs to do?

--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration



Mikrotik Advanced Certified

www.nwwnet.net  
(765) 855-1060  
(765) 439-4253  
(855) 231-6239  


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





 

-- 
Ryan Ghering
Network Operations - Plains.Net
Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879 

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

[WISPA] Tower rescue in TN a couple weeks ago

[Greg Osborn]

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/01/watch-man-rescued-from-gaithersburg-cell-tower-84385.html
 



Tower climber went into hypothermia on the 1-23-13 and had to be rescued 
off the tower.


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

Re: [WISPA] DirecTv On-Demand

[Greg Osborn]

  
  
The hopper (DISH) does the same thing. 
  With the use of the HIC, they plug the internet in the HIC and
  plug a IN and OUT coax.  IP over coax between all customer dish
  devices from there.
  
  On 2/2/2013 10:58 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:


  That was available before the HR34, I believe late 2009, early 2010. It was available about the same time as their SWM technology.



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

- Original Message -
From: j284...@yahoo.com
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 9:35:49 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] DirecTv On-Demand


Right,but the genie has a dongle that is installed with the system and plugs into the router and uses coax to feed to the dvr,hench the higher adoption rate of use. Not liking the levels I'm starting to see. 

Sent from my HTC EVO Design™ 4G 

- Reply message - 
From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTv On-Demand 
Date: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 10:22 am 


I believe all DirecTV DVRs are capable of this. Ours were before the HR34 (Genie). 



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

- Original Message - 
From: "Jason Bailey"  
To: "WISPA General List"  
Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 9:01:21 AM 
Subject: [WISPA] DirecTv On-Demand 


Is it just me,or is everyone being bombarded with constant traffic from the new "Genie" system they are heavily pushing? I'm seeing a ton of traffic from these things on port 80. 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
___ 
Wireless mailing list 
Wireless@wispa.org 
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 

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




-- 
  
Thanks
Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989


  

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

Re: [WISPA] High Capacity AP alternatives?

[Greg Osborn]

  
  
+1...  60 minutes even made them look
  like the bad guy
  
  On 1/26/2013 8:04 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:


  I would never use any Huawei anything unless you like deal with a bunch of unscrupulous people. They'd also be LTE or WiMAX.



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

- Original Message -
From: "Josh Luthman" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:33:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] High Capacity AP alternatives?




Huawei? Canadian WISP is doing 3.5 GHz with their stuff. 

Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 
On Jan 26, 2013 12:31 AM, "Mike Hammett" < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


There's Cambium, WiFi, LTE and WiMAX that I can think of. 

Alvarion has recently come out with a higher capacity AP (LTE?), but I'd consider it to be at the new bar for average. Otherwise, WiMAX and LTE are generally too low of throughput to be useful. 

I don't think anyone has really enough of a differentiator in the WiFi space to not use UBNT or Mikrotik. UBNT is cheap and generally works. Mikrotik has their whole RouterOS behind it and generally works. 

Cambium is the only thing I can think of that's doing their own thing. It looks really good if only the APs were 90% less expensive. 

100 meg of throughput on an AP is really the minimum to be considered. I have areas where I could put something multiples higher to use. 



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

- Original Message - 
From: "Matt Jenkins" < m...@smarterbroadband.net > 
To: us...@wug.cc, "WISPA General List" < wireless@wispa.org > 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 5:36:26 PM 
Subject: [WISPA] High Capacity AP alternatives? 

Besides Cambium, Mikrotik, Ubnt and other WiFi products, is anyone 
successfully deploying something else to service both residential and 
business customers? 

Thanks, 

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

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





-- 
  
Thanks
Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989


  

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

Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?

[Greg Ihnen]

In RouterOS you can disable IPv6 by uninstalling the IPv6 package.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

> At 10/27/2012 10:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >IPv6-only networks aren't far out in ARIN land. Well, unless you
> >like paying out of the nose for third party blocks. I'd say less
> >than 5 years before you cannot obtain an IPv4 address in North
> >America. Complete European and Asian access will require IPv6 soon
> >as they're out of IPv4 already.
> >
>
> I don't want to get into a flame war here, but suffice to say that
> there is an opposing opinion.  IPv6 is five years away from mass
> adoption, but this statement is always true.
>
> IPv4 addresses will be used more efficiently.  They will be
> resold.  There will be more NAT (which only breaks broken
> applications).  So they will always be available.  What has ended is
> the "homestead act" era of IPv4.  Homesteads were free land given to
> farmers.  When they ran out, farming didn't stop; the land could be
> resold.  Same with IPv4.  When it was a free resource, people squandered
> it.
>
> I'm still looking to see how to totally turn off IPv6 in RouterOS, as
> its being on by default scares me.  It's essentially a giant back
> door used primarily by hackers.
>
>
> >-
> >Mike Hammett
> >Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Scott Carullo" 
> >To: wireless@wispa.org
> >Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:18:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] Is IPv6 ready?
> >
> >
> >I'm fairly sure you can change the binding order to adjust this
> >operation to suite your preference. (which one the computer tried first)
> >
> >I don't see IPv6 utilized in my real world until 5-10 years from
> >now. We do provide some customers v6 routed address space and our
> >entire network is routed and supports it, but thats because people
> >like to play with it because its something new in the networking
> >world they want to understand, not because anyone actually requires
> >it. It does provide a small marketing bonus, for those that don't
> >understand it - sounds good any way lol
> >
> >I see it as somewhat as a liability to my network, since there are
> >sure to be bugs in its implementation and dual stack functionality.
> >Just a fear I have, been there done that with different routing
> >protocols in the past and the programmers have not yet achieved
> >perfection yet :)
> >
> >But, I flex, have to let people have their v6 fun (employees and
> >customers alike...)
> >
> >
> >Scott Carullo
> >Technical Operations
> >855-FLSPEED x102
> >
> >
> >___
> >Wireless mailing list
> >Wireless@wispa.org
> >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >___
> >Wireless mailing list
> >Wireless@wispa.org
> >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>   --
>   Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>   ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
>   +1 617 795 2701
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

Megaohms though, probably 30 MOhms or more. It's negligible.

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Mike Mattox  wrote:

> The volt meter is a load, though.
>
> On 10/18/2012 2:57 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
> > No current = no voltage drop. Ohms Law.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeromie Reeves 
> wrote:
> >> The resistance of the length of wire.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Greg Ihnen 
> wrote:
> >>> A voltage difference with no load? What's causing the drop?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Justin Wilson 
> wrote:
> >>>>  We see 27.3 volts at the battery. And 27.1 volts at the top
> with
> >>>> no load.
> >>>>   Obviously load will have an impact on this.
> >>>>
> >>>>  Justin
> >>>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: Jeromie Reeves 
> >>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >>>> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:15 AM
> >>>> To: WISPA General List 
> >>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
> >>>>
> >>>>> That depends on wire size. That distance is not going to be ethernet
> >>>>> so I will assume #12 AWG, 400ft, copper wire, etc. You should be
> >>>>> seeing a 5.6% drop under a 1amp load or about 25v under load.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Justin Wilson 
> wrote:
> >>>>>>  27 volts at the base.  DC has very little loss over 400-500
> >>>>>> foot
> >>>>>> distances.  We are seeing about .1 volt loss on a 400 foot run.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Original Message-
> >>>>>> From: Scott Lambert 
> >>>>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >>>>>> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:16 AM
> >>>>>> To: 
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:14:03PM -0400, Justin Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>   Many UBNT deployments running at 27volts of clean DC power. Not
> >>>>>>>> saying it's ideal but it works.
> >>>>>>> 27v at the ethernet port or 27v at the base of the tower?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Scott LambertKC5MLE   Unix
> >>>>>>> SysAdmin
> >>>>>>> lamb...@lambertfam.org
> >>>>>>> ___
> >>>>>>> Wireless mailing list
> >>>>>>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ___
> >>>>>> Wireless mailing list
> >>>>>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>> ___
> >>>>> Wireless mailing list
> >>>>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ___
> >>>> Wireless mailing list
> >>>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wireless mailing list
> >>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> > ___
> > Wireless mailing list
> > Wireless@wispa.org
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

That's what I thought... but... he said: "We see 27.3 volts at the battery.
And 27.1 volts at the top with no load"


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Chris Fabien  wrote:

> No current = no voltage drop. Ohms Law.
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jeromie Reeves 
> wrote:
> > The resistance of the length of wire.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Greg Ihnen 
> wrote:
> >> A voltage difference with no load? What's causing the drop?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We see 27.3 volts at the battery. And 27.1 volts at the top
> with
> >>> no load.
> >>>  Obviously load will have an impact on this.
> >>>
> >>> Justin
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Jeromie Reeves 
> >>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >>> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:15 AM
> >>> To: WISPA General List 
> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
> >>>
> >>> >That depends on wire size. That distance is not going to be ethernet
> >>> >so I will assume #12 AWG, 400ft, copper wire, etc. You should be
> >>> >seeing a 5.6% drop under a 1amp load or about 25v under load.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Justin Wilson 
> wrote:
> >>> >> 27 volts at the base.  DC has very little loss over 400-500
> >>> >> foot
> >>> >> distances.  We are seeing about .1 volt loss on a 400 foot run.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Original Message-
> >>> >> From: Scott Lambert 
> >>> >> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >>> >> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:16 AM
> >>> >> To: 
> >>> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:14:03PM -0400, Justin Wilson wrote:
> >>> >>>>  Many UBNT deployments running at 27volts of clean DC power. Not
> >>> >>>> saying it's ideal but it works.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>27v at the ethernet port or 27v at the base of the tower?
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>--
> >>> >>>Scott LambertKC5MLE   Unix
> >>> >>>SysAdmin
> >>> >>>lamb...@lambertfam.org
> >>> >>>___
> >>> >>>Wireless mailing list
> >>> >>>Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ___
> >>> >> Wireless mailing list
> >>> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>> >___
> >>> >Wireless mailing list
> >>> >Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Wireless mailing list
> >>> Wireless@wispa.org
> >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> > ___
> > Wireless mailing list
> > Wireless@wispa.org
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

A voltage difference with no load? What's causing the drop?

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Justin Wilson  wrote:

> We see 27.3 volts at the battery. And 27.1 volts at the top with
> no load.
>  Obviously load will have an impact on this.
>
> Justin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeromie Reeves 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:15 AM
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
>
> >That depends on wire size. That distance is not going to be ethernet
> >so I will assume #12 AWG, 400ft, copper wire, etc. You should be
> >seeing a 5.6% drop under a 1amp load or about 25v under load.
> >
> >
> >On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
> >> 27 volts at the base.  DC has very little loss over 400-500 foot
> >> distances.  We are seeing about .1 volt loss on a 400 foot run.
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Scott Lambert 
> >> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> >> Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 12:16 AM
> >> To: 
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:14:03PM -0400, Justin Wilson wrote:
>   Many UBNT deployments running at 27volts of clean DC power. Not
>  saying it's ideal but it works.
> >>>
> >>>27v at the ethernet port or 27v at the base of the tower?
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Scott LambertKC5MLE   Unix
> >>>SysAdmin
> >>>lamb...@lambertfam.org
> >>>___
> >>>Wireless mailing list
> >>>Wireless@wispa.org
> >>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wireless mailing list
> >> Wireless@wispa.org
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >___
> >Wireless mailing list
> >Wireless@wispa.org
> >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

OK, I asked about the PS2 years back and I believe I was told 30v for that.

Greg

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:

>  II was told NO!! <27VDC
>
> ** **
>
> Steve Barnes
>
> General Manager
>
> PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi <http://www.rcwifi.com/>
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Greg Ihnen
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:35 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question
>
> ** **
>
> Doesn't UBNT gear take up to 30v?
>
> ** **
>
> Greg
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Jeromie Reeves 
> wrote:
>
> Why not run the NSM5 on 24v? Just add a diode or two to the + side,
> the 1v drop on them will protect the NSM from
> the charge voltage of the bank. $2 fix
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Olufemi Adalemo 
> wrote:
> > It just dawned on me that I may have been barking up the wrong tree
> > I only have the one NSM5 to connect, I could hook this up to the parallel
> > segment of my battery bank and get only 12v while the rest of the
> > installation that's connected in series gets 24v. Do you think this will
> > work? Don't really have to worry about the NSM5 running down the battery
> > cause load is low and the cable run is under 10m so the voltage drop from
> > 12v will be negligible
> >
> > So this is how it would be:
> > 24v solar panel connected to 24v charge controller with 4 x 12v batteries
> > connected in a 2x2 series/parallel array. cable connected to the parallel
> > segment of battery bank (theoretically giving 12v to the NSM5), rest of
> the
> > load connected to the charge controller at 24v
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > - - -
> > Olufemi Adalemo
> > M: +234-803-5610040
> > M: +234-809-8610040
> > f...@adalemo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Kristian Hoffmann 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ya, it should be +24 on pins 4,5 and -24/comm on 7,8.  If it blew up
> then
> >> there was probably a short somewhere.
> >>
> >> -Kristian
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/12/2012 11:11 AM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah ok, it is possible that the guys didn't get the polarity right
> >> I will check though they swear that they did
> >>
> >>
> >> - - -
> >> Olufemi Adalemo
> >> M: +234-803-5610040
> >> M: +234-809-8610040
> >> f...@adalemo.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v but
> >>> without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin
> discharging.
> >>> If it fried the radio I would first think that it was connected wrong,
> not
> >>> that the voltage was too high.
> >>>
> >>> Josh Luthman
> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>> Suite 1337
> >>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What's your typical config for the NSM5?
> >>>> Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no
> >>>> charger connected just battery) and it fried good
> >>>>
> >>>> - - -
> >>>> Olufemi Adalemo
> >>>> M: +234-803-5610040
> >>>> M: +234-809-8610040
> >>>> f...@adalemo.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann <
> kh...@fire2wire.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at
> 27.6V.
> >>>>> The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that won't
> power
> >>>>> on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into overvoltage
> >>>>> protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Kristian
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>>>&g

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

Doesn't UBNT gear take up to 30v?

Greg

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

> Why not run the NSM5 on 24v? Just add a diode or two to the + side,
> the 1v drop on them will protect the NSM from
> the charge voltage of the bank. $2 fix
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Olufemi Adalemo 
> wrote:
> > It just dawned on me that I may have been barking up the wrong tree
> > I only have the one NSM5 to connect, I could hook this up to the parallel
> > segment of my battery bank and get only 12v while the rest of the
> > installation that's connected in series gets 24v. Do you think this will
> > work? Don't really have to worry about the NSM5 running down the battery
> > cause load is low and the cable run is under 10m so the voltage drop from
> > 12v will be negligible
> >
> > So this is how it would be:
> > 24v solar panel connected to 24v charge controller with 4 x 12v batteries
> > connected in a 2x2 series/parallel array. cable connected to the parallel
> > segment of battery bank (theoretically giving 12v to the NSM5), rest of
> the
> > load connected to the charge controller at 24v
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > - - -
> > Olufemi Adalemo
> > M: +234-803-5610040
> > M: +234-809-8610040
> > f...@adalemo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Kristian Hoffmann 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Ya, it should be +24 on pins 4,5 and -24/comm on 7,8.  If it blew up
> then
> >> there was probably a short somewhere.
> >>
> >> -Kristian
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/12/2012 11:11 AM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
> >>
> >> Ah ok, it is possible that the guys didn't get the polarity right
> >> I will check though they swear that they did
> >>
> >>
> >> - - -
> >> Olufemi Adalemo
> >> M: +234-803-5610040
> >> M: +234-809-8610040
> >> f...@adalemo.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v but
> >>> without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin
> discharging.
> >>> If it fried the radio I would first think that it was connected wrong,
> not
> >>> that the voltage was too high.
> >>>
> >>> Josh Luthman
> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>> Suite 1337
> >>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What's your typical config for the NSM5?
> >>>> Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no
> >>>> charger connected just battery) and it fried good
> >>>>
> >>>> - - -
> >>>> Olufemi Adalemo
> >>>> M: +234-803-5610040
> >>>> M: +234-809-8610040
> >>>> f...@adalemo.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann <
> kh...@fire2wire.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at
> 27.6V.
> >>>>> The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that won't
> power
> >>>>> on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into overvoltage
> >>>>> protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Kristian
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged,
> >>>>> it's usually 27v.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could
> >>>>> reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Josh Luthman
> >>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>>>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>>>> Suite 1337
> >>>>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>>>
> >>>

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

The problem isn't that you'll completely discharge the part of the bank
you're pulling 12v off of, but rather if you discharge the bank unevenly
and charge the entire bank in series then you're either overcharging the
part you're not pulling 12v off of in order to properly charge the part you
are pulling 12v off of -or- you're going to undercharge the part where you
are pulling off 12v if you properly charge the part of the bank where you
are aren't pulling 12v off. There's just no way around that. Swapping which
part of the bank you're using to pull off the 12v will help but you'll want
to swap much more frequently thank bi-anullay. You'll want to swap at least
once a month.

If you only need 8W of power, then if you use a 24v to 12v regulator that's
90% efficient or better the losses will be negligible.

Greg



On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

> Thanks Greg,
> I can see how putting load on just one part of the battery bank could
> cause issues but this load is quite small compared to the total battery
> capacity. I will be putting only 8w on two 150Ah 12v batteries (3600Wh
> total capacity). It would take 400 hours to deplete the battery bank with
> this load only, do you still think this will be a problem? If this will be
> a problem I could have the load moved from one bank to the other at a
> scheduled maintenance visit say twice a year. I really appreciate the
> advice.
>
> Regards,
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>
>> My two cents: If you discharge part of your battery bank unevenly (pull
>> off just half of your 24v bank to get 12v for some loads) you will have
>> trouble with part of the bank getting over charged and part of the bank not
>> getting charged enough. If you were charging the bank with an AC charger
>> that charges each battery individually according to it's needs that
>> wouldn't be a problem. But if you're charging the entire bank with a single
>> device that charges the entire string in series like a 24v solar charger
>> that is not a good way to go. You'd be better off with a 24v to 12v
>> regulator.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>
>>> It just dawned on me that I may have been barking up the wrong tree
>>> I only have the one NSM5 to connect, I could hook this up to the
>>> parallel segment of my battery bank and get only 12v while the rest of the
>>> installation that's connected in series gets 24v. Do you think this will
>>> work? Don't really have to worry about the NSM5 running down the battery
>>> cause load is low and the cable run is under 10m so the voltage drop from
>>> 12v will be negligible
>>>
>>> So this is how it would be:
>>> 24v solar panel connected to 24v charge controller with 4 x 12v
>>> batteries connected in a 2x2 series/parallel array. cable connected to the
>>> parallel segment of battery bank (theoretically giving 12v to the NSM5),
>>> rest of the load connected to the charge controller at 24v
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>> - - -
>>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>> M: +234-803-5610040
>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>> f...@adalemo.com
>>>
>>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

I have a PS2 wired to the 12 starting battery of a generator which starts
and stops a few times a day with no issues. The PS2 doesn't even reset when
the gen starts and the battery pulls down to around 8~9 volts while the
starter is cranking. When the gen runs the batt voltage goes to ~14.6.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> ~12v should be OK by specs, but I've never heard of anyone doing such a
> "low" voltage to a Ubnt device.  Not sure if no ones tried it or it just
> ended quickly in failure.
>
> Just be aware that 24v and 12v batteries have a higher voltage for
> charging.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>
>> It just dawned on me that I may have been barking up the wrong tree
>> I only have the one NSM5 to connect, I could hook this up to the parallel
>> segment of my battery bank and get only 12v while the rest of the
>> installation that's connected in series gets 24v. Do you think this will
>> work? Don't really have to worry about the NSM5 running down the battery
>> cause load is low and the cable run is under 10m so the voltage drop from
>> 12v will be negligible
>>
>> So this is how it would be:
>> 24v solar panel connected to 24v charge controller with 4 x 12v batteries
>> connected in a 2x2 series/parallel array. cable connected to the parallel
>> segment of battery bank (theoretically giving 12v to the NSM5), rest of the
>> load connected to the charge controller at 24v
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> - - -
>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>> M: +234-803-5610040
>> M: +234-809-8610040
>> f...@adalemo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Kristian Hoffmann 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Ya, it should be +24 on pins 4,5 and -24/comm on 7,8.  If it blew up
>>> then there was probably a short somewhere.
>>>
>>> -Kristian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2012 11:11 AM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah ok, it is possible that the guys didn't get the polarity right
>>> I will check though they swear that they did
>>>
>>>
>>>   - - -
>>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v but
>>>> without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin discharging.
>>>>  If it fried the radio I would first think that it was connected wrong, not
>>>> that the voltage was too high.
>>>>
>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>> Suite 1337
>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's your typical config for the NSM5?
>>>>> Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no
>>>>> charger connected just battery) and it fried good
>>>>>
>>>>>   - - -
>>>>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>>>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>>>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>>>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann <
>>>>> kh...@fire2wire.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at
>>>>>> 27.6V.  The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that
>>>>>> won't power on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into
>>>>>> overvoltage protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Kristian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged,
>>>>>> it's usually 27v.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I was under the impression they w

Re: [WISPA] Another Ubiquity question

[Greg Ihnen]

My two cents: If you discharge part of your battery bank unevenly (pull off
just half of your 24v bank to get 12v for some loads) you will have trouble
with part of the bank getting over charged and part of the bank not getting
charged enough. If you were charging the bank with an AC charger that
charges each battery individually according to it's needs that wouldn't be
a problem. But if you're charging the entire bank with a single device that
charges the entire string in series like a 24v solar charger that is not a
good way to go. You'd be better off with a 24v to 12v regulator.

Greg

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Olufemi Adalemo  wrote:

> It just dawned on me that I may have been barking up the wrong tree
> I only have the one NSM5 to connect, I could hook this up to the parallel
> segment of my battery bank and get only 12v while the rest of the
> installation that's connected in series gets 24v. Do you think this will
> work? Don't really have to worry about the NSM5 running down the battery
> cause load is low and the cable run is under 10m so the voltage drop from
> 12v will be negligible
>
> So this is how it would be:
> 24v solar panel connected to 24v charge controller with 4 x 12v batteries
> connected in a 2x2 series/parallel array. cable connected to the parallel
> segment of battery bank (theoretically giving 12v to the NSM5), rest of the
> load connected to the charge controller at 24v
>
> What do you think?
> - - -
> *Olufemi Adalemo*
> M: +234-803-5610040
> M: +234-809-8610040
> f...@adalemo.com
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:
>
>>  Ya, it should be +24 on pins 4,5 and -24/comm on 7,8.  If it blew up
>> then there was probably a short somewhere.
>>
>> -Kristian
>>
>>
>> On 10/12/2012 11:11 AM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>
>> Ah ok, it is possible that the guys didn't get the polarity right
>> I will check though they swear that they did
>>
>>
>>   - - -
>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What voltage were the batteries spitting out?  They charge at 27v but
>>> without a charger put out much closer to 24v until they begin discharging.
>>>  If it fried the radio I would first think that it was connected wrong, not
>>> that the voltage was too high.
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Olufemi Adalemo wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's your typical config for the NSM5?
>>>> Some of my guys just tried to power one off a 24v battery bank (no
>>>> charger connected just battery) and it fried good
>>>>
>>>>   - - -
>>>> *Olufemi Adalemo*
>>>>  M: +234-803-5610040
>>>> M: +234-809-8610040
>>>>  f...@adalemo.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Kristian Hoffmann <
>>>> kh...@fire2wire.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  We have MT and Ubnt equipment of all shapes and sizes running at
>>>>> 27.6V.  The only problems we've had are a handful of freak RB411s that
>>>>> won't power on with >27V.  Most of the older ones wouldn't kick into
>>>>> overvoltage protection until >28V, but we've come across a few odd balls.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Kristian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 10:44 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Charger isn't going to spit out 24v for batteries that need charged,
>>>>> it's usually 27v.
>>>>>
>>>>>  I was under the impression they would simply lock up and you could
>>>>> reboot, or maybe I'm just thinking of MT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>>> Suite 1337
>>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Olufemi Adalemo 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aha, thanks
>>>>>> That explains why I ha

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Radios as routers

[Greg Osborn]

  
  
Very few customers know any difference.
  
  On 10/11/2012 3:46 PM, Arthur Stephens wrote:

We currently use Ubiquiti radios in bridge mode and
  assign a ip address to the customers router.
  He have heard other wisp are using the Ubiquiti radio as a
router.
  Would like feed back why one would do this when it appears
customers would be double natted when they hook up their
routers?
  Or does it not matter from the customer experience?
  
Thanks


-- 
Arthur Stephens

Senior Sales Technician

Ptera Wireless Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019

509-927-7837

For technical support visit http://www.ptera.net/support
 -

"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety
information,
and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally
addressed. 
Any use by others is strictly prohibited.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email
are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent
those of the company." 
  
  
  
  
  ___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



  

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

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

[Greg Ihnen]

Obviously the intended/proper use isn't to interfere with other people's
legit networks. The intended use is to prevent rogue networks within your
own area where you want to maintain network security.

So in the case you mention, the proper configuration is to whitelist the
other tenants' networks/APs and *not* interfere with their network. A legit
use might be to disassociate clients from a rogue AP that is on the channel
you're using, which is also using your SSID and is an obvious attempt to
lure people to use the rogue network probably for nefarious reasons.

Does this not make sense to you or are you trolling?

Greg

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:

> So in turn, becoming exactly what it's trying to prevent???  A Rogue AP
> from the viewpoint of the other tenants who are simply trying to do
> business on a different floor.
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>
>> I believe the rogue countermeasures *could* be configured to
>> disassociate the other tenant's clients from the other tenant's AP.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:
>>
>>> That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be using
>>> their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC would be
>>> 'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.
>>>
>>> Z
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
>>>
>>>>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>>>>
>>>> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE
>>>> AP's".  *
>>>> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office
>>>> building with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
>>>> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
>>>> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
>>>> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the
>>>> other tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
>>>> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be
>>>> a violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
>>>> complaint with the FCC?
>>>> **
>>>> *---Original Message---*
>>>>
>>>>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
>>>> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
>>>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>>>> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>>>>
>>>> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the
>>>> ins and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
>>>> conventions.
>>>>
>>>> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>>>> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
>>>> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>>>> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Wireless mailing list
>>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

[Greg Ihnen]

I believe the rogue countermeasures *could* be configured to disassociate
the other tenant's clients from the other tenant's AP.

Greg

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Zach Mann  wrote:

> That's not how the system works.  The other Tenants would still be using
> their OWN wireless network, only the floor that deployed Cisco WLC would be
> 'squashing' the "rouge AP's" from their OWN network.
>
> Z
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:
>
>>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>>
>> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE  AP's".
>> *
>> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
>> with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
>> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
>> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
>> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the other
>> tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
>> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be a
>> violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
>> complaint with the FCC?
>> **
>> *---Original Message---*
>>
>>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
>> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
>> *To:* WISPA General List 
>> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>>
>> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
>> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
>> conventions.
>>
>> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
>> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

[Greg Ihnen]

Regarding what you wrote below (I'm assuming you're not copying and pasting
another person's question since you didn't indicate it's a quote) if the
tenant who deploys rogue countermeasures against other tenant's APs, I'm
not sure it's *RF* interference. It's not interfering with the RF signal of
the other tenant's APs or clients, it's merely telling the clients to
disassociate from the other tenants AP. It's spoofing the other tenant's
AP's MAC address, but I'm not sure that qualifies as false identification
because it's not spoofing a call sign. It's clearly interfering with the
other tenants *COMMUNICATION*. I guess the question would be how the FCC
would interpret that. Would it fall under "malicious interference"?

Greg

You are aware that the APs that have rogue countermeasures give very
granular control, and would allow the tenant deploying rogue
countermeasures to whitelist the other tenants' APs.

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Doug Clark  wrote:

>Did any of you read the original posters question?
>
> I understand that the technology is out there to squash *"ROUGE  AP's".  *
> Let me make this a little simpler.  Lets' say we have an office building
> with 6 floors and each floor is leased to a different tenant.
> Lets say that the tenant on the fourth floor decides he is sick of
> competing for airwaves for his wireless system and deploys the Cisco
> or Motorola system and squashes all the other tenants APs.  All the other
> tenants APs now do not work because of the system which
> has been put in place by the tenant on the fourth floor.  Would this be a
> violation of Part-15 if all the other tenants were to file a formal
> complaint with the FCC?
> **
> *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Greg Ihnen 
> *Date:* 9/22/2012 5:34:47 AM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Can they really do this?
>
> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like
> conventions.
>
> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will
> spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
> occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Can they really do this?

[Greg Ihnen]

Thanks to everyone who replied to this topic!

Greg

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Chris Stradtman <
cstradt...@greenpointcommunications.com> wrote:

> This is a common "feature" available under almost all of the enterprise
> market APs / wireless switch systems.
> I would hazard a guess that there are probably several hundred thousand
> APs in the world that already have this turned on and running.
> Although I would also guess that in many cases the person operating the
> wireless devices has no real idea of what it's doing.
> It's just a knob that turned on because it was there ;-)
>
>  Chris
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>
>> There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
>> and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like conventions.
>>
>> This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that
>> will spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not
>> by occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
>> impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?
>>
>> The quote:
>>
>> > One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
>> > Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for their
>> > wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
>> > because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks have
>> > stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they see
>> > and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them side
>> > by side.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

[WISPA] Can they really do this?

[Greg Ihnen]

There's a current debate raging right now on the NANOG list about the ins
and outs of setting up large temporary networks for things like conventions.

This one post caught my attention. Has anyone heard of a WiFi AP that will
spoof neighboring networks to intentionally interfere with them, not by
occupying/jamming the spectrum in a brute force way, but rather by
impersonating the other network and rejecting new associations?

The quote:

> One of which I forgot to mention. Many of the hotels (I believe all
> Hilton properties at this time) have sold the facilities space for their
> wifi network to another company. They CAN'T negotiate it with you,
> because they don't own it any more. And most of these wifi networks have
> stealth killers enabled, so that they spoof any other wifi zone they see
> and send back reject messages to the clients. So you can't run them side
> by side.

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

Re: [WISPA] Zero-Variable Wireless Infrastructure Deployment

[Greg Ihnen]

I think they mean no variables pertaining to pigtail cables, loose miniPCI
cards and other things which can go wrong in the build-it-yourself CPE
(antenna, enclosure, cpu, radio card, pigtail, etc.) which can't go wrong
with the one piece CPEs because they don't have those components (internal
pigtails, cards that could be loose in their sockets etc.).

Greg

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 6:24 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:

> **
> What does *Zero-Variable Wireless Infrastructure Deployment mean*
> NGL
>   If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
<>___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti next product.... another router?

[Greg Ihnen]

Are people going to be able to tolerate the bleeding-edge cycle of
bugs/firmware updates that has been the history with their wireless gear?

Once again they're breaking new ground, this time with low cost/high pps
throughput. Will they be able to make it powerful (rich feature set) *and*easy?

It's going to have to be really good to make people switch.

Maybe they're going for a niche market of people who want only features
relevant to the WISP market (bandwidth management, bandwidth accounting
etc, vlans) and not people who want a do-all box like MT which has a lot of
features most WISPs probably don't use (BGP and the forwarding protocols
come to mind).

Greg

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM, Paolo Di Francesco <
paolo.difrance...@level7.it> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I see that Ubiquiti is launching a new product, a router.
>
> Well, personally, I do not think that it's a good idea, hard market and
> I really do not see a real reason why I should buy the Ubiquiti router
> instead of other well knows products
>
>  From my perspective the value or a core/edge router is not only in the
> number of packets, it's more into the number of bugs and instabilities.
>
> A new product has less or more bugs/instabilities than others working
> since years in my network?
>
> I am not sure that I want to restart thinking new workarounds for a new
> brand.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> --
>
>
> Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
>
> Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
>
> Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
>
> C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
> Fax : +39-091-8772072
> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
> web: http://www.level7.it
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Upload and download Shaping in MikroTik radios

[Greg Ihnen]

I heard that simple queues are a trickle down list like mangle, and that
can lead to folks higher up on the list having an advantage over those
further down, and that the tree queue is a more fair system. Maybe that's
only a consideration if you have a whole lot of simple queues.

Greg

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Matt Brendle <
mattagator.mailingli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> **
>
> One way is to set a simple queue.  In Winbox go to Queues>Simple Queues
> and add new simple queue.  For name put customer name, for target address
> put customer’s IP address, then set their upload/download directly below
> that (Max Limit:)  Click Apply and it is set.  Of course this is if you are
> giving all customers a static IP.
>
> ** **
>
> 
>  --
>
> *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Eduardo
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 05, 2012 9:06 AM
> *To:* **WISPA General List**
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Upload and download Shaping in MikroTik radios
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,
>
>  
>
> Does someone know how to control the upload and download traffic in the MT?
> 
>
>  
>
> I need to shape the traffic to our customers accordingly to the kind of
> account they are paying for.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eduardo
>
> Webjogger Internet Services
>
> www.webjogger.net
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
<>___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Upload and download Shaping in MikroTik radios

[Greg Ihnen]

The MT wiki has some good info and examples to get you going.

There's also MT consultants who hang out on this list who can set it all up
for you for a fee.

Greg

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Eduardo  wrote:

> **
>
> Hi,**
>
>  
>
> Does someone know how to control the upload and download traffic in the MT?
> 
>
>  
>
> I need to shape the traffic to our customers accordingly to the kind of
> account they are paying for.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eduardo
>
> Webjogger Internet Services
>
> www.webjogger.net
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower

[Greg Ihnen]

They do lightning protection with very expensive commercial protectors, and the 
new solid state transmitters can sense the condition and momentarily shut down 
while the protector is doing it's thing which is basically becoming a 
short-circuit to pass the energy to ground, otherwise the transmitter would  
provide enough power to keep the protector in the fired state, and the 
transmitter wouldn't be too happy looking into a short-circuit.

Greg

On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> AFAIK, you bond all metal objects with the tower itself. You aren't going to 
> avoid the RF, so you "make peace" with it.
> 
> I am kind of curious, though, how they handle lightning and ESD on a hot 
> tower. They surely have a method because those transmitters aren't throw-away 
> items.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Greg Ihnen" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower
> 
> 
> The tower is the AM antenna correct? If you ground your gear to the tower, 
> aren't you connecting your gear directly to the "antenna"? It seems like if 
> to try and avoid RF you connect to the thing that is energized with RF it's a 
> step in the wrong direction. 
> 
> 
> Is the tower a grounded-base or insulated-base (the tower stands on a big 
> insulator). If it's an insulated-base antenna you're definitely not 
> "grounding" your gear by connecting to the tower since the tower isn't 
> grounded. 
> 
> 
> Greg 
> 
> 
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote: 
> 
> 
> You'll want to isolate the power with an isocoupler. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brian Gray"  
> To: wireless@wispa.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:43:51 PM 
> Subject: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower 
> 
> 
> Besides staying away from an AM tower, does anyone have any guidance as far 
> as mounting equipment, specifically POE equipment on one without problems for 
> us or the AM tower? 
> 
> 
> How do I keep AM RF out of my POE cables and my radios / antennas? 
> 
> 
> How do I ground my gear? 
> 
> 
> My initial thoughts are: 
> 
> 
> Install equipment enclosure at base of tower, attached to tower. 
> Run 1" metallic liquid tight (MLT) up tower to aluminum enclosure at 200', 
> continue run from enclosure with 1" MLT up to 300' to additional aluminum 
> enclosure 
> run 2 3/4" MLT from 200' enclosure to 2 backhaul radios (probably UBNT NB25 
> to start with) 
> run 3 3/4" MLT from 300' enclosure to 3 sector antennas (probably UBNT Rocket 
> M2) 
> drill small weep holes in 3/4" runs as they will not be weather tight to 
> radios 
> run shielded cat 5 inside metallic liquid tight. 
> Put 2-3 ferrite cores on the ends of all of the cables. 
> install poe surge arrestors on both ends of cables, just before radio and 
> just before router. 
> wrap rf choke into both ends of a/c power cable running from enclosure to 
> circuit panel 
> No clue on grounding this thing. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Gray 
> 
> Joink LLC 
> Network Manager 
> 812-231-7087 direct 
> 812-870-3332 mobile 
> 
> Joink Customer Support 1-888-31-JOINK 
> 
> 
> ___ 
> Wireless mailing list 
> Wireless@wispa.org 
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> ___ 
> Wireless mailing list 
> Wireless@wispa.org 
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower

[Greg Ihnen]

That was my first thought too, the possible pattern change. The antenna might 
have to be resurveyed after the install.

Greg

On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:27 AM, lakel...@gbcx.net  wrote:

> The station engineer should be the lead information contact. If he is 
> clueless most AM stations have engineering firms on retainer.
> 
> Adding equipment to certain stations can change the antenna radiation 
> pattern. Obviously the FCC doesn't lie this.  ;-)
> 
> -B-
> 
> - Reply message -
> From: "Brian Gray" 
> To: 
> Subject: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower
> Date: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 8:43 pm
> 
> 
> Besides staying away from an AM tower, does anyone have any guidance as far 
> as mounting equipment, specifically POE equipment on one without problems for 
> us or the AM tower?
> 
> How do I keep AM RF out of my POE cables and my radios / antennas?
> 
> How do I ground my gear?
> 
> My initial thoughts are:
> 
> Install equipment enclosure at base of tower, attached to tower.
> Run 1" metallic liquid tight (MLT) up tower to aluminum enclosure at 200',
> continue run from enclosure with 1" MLT up to 300' to additional aluminum 
> enclosure
> run 2 3/4" MLT from 200' enclosure to 2 backhaul radios (probably UBNT NB25 
> to start with)
> run 3 3/4" MLT from 300' enclosure to 3 sector antennas (probably UBNT Rocket 
> M2)
> drill small weep holes in 3/4" runs as they will not be weather tight to 
> radios
> run shielded cat 5 inside metallic liquid tight.
> Put 2-3 ferrite cores on the ends of all of the cables.
> install poe surge arrestors on both ends of cables, just before radio and 
> just before router.
> wrap rf choke into both ends of a/c power cable running from enclosure to 
> circuit panel
> No clue on grounding this thing.
> 
> Thank you in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Gray
>  
> Joink LLC
> Network Manager
> 812-231-7087 direct
> 812-870-3332 mobile
> 
> Joink Customer Support 1-888-31-JOINK
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower

[Greg Ihnen]

They do lightning protection with very expensive commercial protectors, and the 
new solid state transmitters can sense the condition and momentarily shut down 
while the protector is doing it's thing which is basically becoming a 
short-circuit to pass the energy to ground, otherwise the transmitter would  
provide enough power to keep the protector in the fired state, and the 
transmitter wouldn't be too happy looking into a short-circuit.

Greg

On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:12 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> AFAIK, you bond all metal objects with the tower itself. You aren't going to 
> avoid the RF, so you "make peace" with it.
> 
> I am kind of curious, though, how they handle lightning and ESD on a hot 
> tower. They surely have a method because those transmitters aren't throw-away 
> items.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Greg Ihnen" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower
> 
> 
> The tower is the AM antenna correct? If you ground your gear to the tower, 
> aren't you connecting your gear directly to the "antenna"? It seems like if 
> to try and avoid RF you connect to the thing that is energized with RF it's a 
> step in the wrong direction. 
> 
> 
> Is the tower a grounded-base or insulated-base (the tower stands on a big 
> insulator). If it's an insulated-base antenna you're definitely not 
> "grounding" your gear by connecting to the tower since the tower isn't 
> grounded. 
> 
> 
> Greg 
> 
> 
> On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Mike Hammett < wispawirel...@ics-il.net > wrote: 
> 
> 
> You'll want to isolate the power with an isocoupler. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brian Gray"  
> To: wireless@wispa.org 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:43:51 PM 
> Subject: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower 
> 
> 
> Besides staying away from an AM tower, does anyone have any guidance as far 
> as mounting equipment, specifically POE equipment on one without problems for 
> us or the AM tower? 
> 
> 
> How do I keep AM RF out of my POE cables and my radios / antennas? 
> 
> 
> How do I ground my gear? 
> 
> 
> My initial thoughts are: 
> 
> 
> Install equipment enclosure at base of tower, attached to tower. 
> Run 1" metallic liquid tight (MLT) up tower to aluminum enclosure at 200', 
> continue run from enclosure with 1" MLT up to 300' to additional aluminum 
> enclosure 
> run 2 3/4" MLT from 200' enclosure to 2 backhaul radios (probably UBNT NB25 
> to start with) 
> run 3 3/4" MLT from 300' enclosure to 3 sector antennas (probably UBNT Rocket 
> M2) 
> drill small weep holes in 3/4" runs as they will not be weather tight to 
> radios 
> run shielded cat 5 inside metallic liquid tight. 
> Put 2-3 ferrite cores on the ends of all of the cables. 
> install poe surge arrestors on both ends of cables, just before radio and 
> just before router. 
> wrap rf choke into both ends of a/c power cable running from enclosure to 
> circuit panel 
> No clue on grounding this thing. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Gray 
> 
> Joink LLC 
> Network Manager 
> 812-231-7087 direct 
> 812-870-3332 mobile 
> 
> Joink Customer Support 1-888-31-JOINK 
> 
> 
> ___ 
> Wireless mailing list 
> Wireless@wispa.org 
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> ___ 
> Wireless mailing list 
> Wireless@wispa.org 
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower

[Greg Ihnen]

The tower is the AM antenna correct? If you ground your gear to the tower, 
aren't you connecting your gear directly to the "antenna"? It seems like if to 
try and avoid RF you connect to the thing that is energized with RF it's a step 
in the wrong direction.

Is the tower a grounded-base or insulated-base (the tower stands on a big 
insulator). If it's an insulated-base antenna you're definitely not "grounding" 
your gear by connecting to the tower since the tower isn't grounded.

Greg
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:01 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

> You'll want to isolate the power with an isocoupler.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian Gray" 
> To: wireless@wispa.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:43:51 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Guidance for mounting gear on an AM tower
> 
> 
> Besides staying away from an AM tower, does anyone have any guidance as far 
> as mounting equipment, specifically POE equipment on one without problems for 
> us or the AM tower? 
> 
> 
> How do I keep AM RF out of my POE cables and my radios / antennas? 
> 
> 
> How do I ground my gear? 
> 
> 
> My initial thoughts are: 
> 
> 
> Install equipment enclosure at base of tower, attached to tower. 
> Run 1" metallic liquid tight (MLT) up tower to aluminum enclosure at 200', 
> continue run from enclosure with 1" MLT up to 300' to additional aluminum 
> enclosure 
> run 2 3/4" MLT from 200' enclosure to 2 backhaul radios (probably UBNT NB25 
> to start with) 
> run 3 3/4" MLT from 300' enclosure to 3 sector antennas (probably UBNT Rocket 
> M2) 
> drill small weep holes in 3/4" runs as they will not be weather tight to 
> radios 
> run shielded cat 5 inside metallic liquid tight. 
> Put 2-3 ferrite cores on the ends of all of the cables. 
> install poe surge arrestors on both ends of cables, just before radio and 
> just before router. 
> wrap rf choke into both ends of a/c power cable running from enclosure to 
> circuit panel 
> No clue on grounding this thing. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you in advance! 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brian Gray 
> 
> Joink LLC 
> Network Manager 
> 812-231-7087 direct 
> 812-870-3332 mobile 
> 
> Joink Customer Support 1-888-31-JOINK 
> 
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...

[Greg Ihnen]

I think UBNT approach is very smart - sell the best product they can make as 
inexpensively as they can. But because it's built in China and UBNT doesn't 
have the strength of say an Apple Computer to control shenanigans there's a 
chance they're basically just handing their inner most secrets and details over 
to the competition, not meaning existing competitors in the market but rather a 
more nebulous competition, some individual or company which will see an 
opportunity to start selling a similar product or even worse, selling a 
counterfeit version of the exact same product.

All companies are in a race to the bottom for price. UBNT is well positioned to 
do well in that race.

What I fear most will happen is that UBNT will over-diversify and spread 
themselves too thin. But since everything they've came out with so far is 
pretty kick-ass I think they'll do well. Though the handwriting will be on the 
wall when we start seeing UBNT gear with "As Seen on TV!" on the package.

Greg
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Paolo Di Francesco  
wrote:

>> 
>> It's interesting that the stock tanked after they basically met or exceeded 
>> street expectations.
>> 
> 
> Hi Greg
> 
> in some cases, not saying this is the case, it can happen that the more 
> success has a product the faster the company will be out of the market.
> 
> This can happen in situations where the company has a product that is 
> destroying the market for everybody, itself too. So if a "market killer" 
> (i.e. a product/service that kills the market) has an unexpected success it 
> can also mean the end of the company.
> 
> I will do an example: let's say that for the nature of the market, the number 
> of sold items will be 1 million. All companies are selling at 100$ then one 
> company steps in and sells at 10$. The market goes from 100millions to 10 
> millions so basically if your company can survive with only 10 millions this 
> year that will mean it's nice, but what about next year? If the product is 
> very good and there is no new cool feature next year in the next product, 
> nobody will buy it and next year the market will be around zero. No margin to 
> survive next year in this market
> 
> Well I hope that is not the case for UBNT let's wait and see :)
> 
> just my 2 Euro cents
> Paolo
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Ing. Paolo Di Francesco
> 
> Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale
> 
> Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo
> 
> C.F. e P.IVA  05940050825
> Fax : +39-091-8772072
> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432
> web: http://www.level7.it
> 
> 
> 

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...

[Greg Ihnen]

If there hadn't just been a downward revision of the outlook by the UBNT
management I'd be looking for conspiracy theories.

Did anybody take a look at the volume was involved in the drop?

My guess is the drop is the response of investors who follow the
fundamentals and outlook from management.

Greg

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

> There have been rumors of a stock broker in ?NY? I think possibly
> manipulating the stock.
>
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2012, at 19:25, Jack Unger  wrote:
>
> Could be multiple reasons for such a sharp, instant and unnatural drop.
>
> 1. The reason the trade press gives often is not the real reason but a
> cover story intended for the masses.
>
> 2. Manipulating the price of anything these days (stocks, gold, etc.) can
> and is done by any entity through leveraged, computer-programmed buying and
> selling.
>
> A drop as steep and as sudden as UBNT says that either
>
> a) A huge number of holders of the stock all decided to unload it at the
> very same exact instant (the chances of this are little to none), or
>
> b) The price was manipulated downward intentionally. I have no idea who
> would want to do this, right? UBNT (and the WISP industry) have absolutely
> no enemies, right?
>
> jack
>
>
>  On 8/9/2012 4:04 PM, Doug Clark wrote:
>
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ubiquiti-plunges-as-counterfeits-hurt-outlook-2012-08-09
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>  *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Zach Mann 
> *Date:* 8/9/2012 5:02:32 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...
>
>
> What news or report caused the sell off ?
> On Aug 9, 2012 5:57 PM, "Sam Tetherow"  wrote:
>  If you still have faith in the company, now is a good time to buy down
> your cost basis.
>
> On 08/09/2012 05:44 PM, Doug Clark wrote:
>Have you ever had 100,000 barrels of oil that you purchased at 110.00
> per barrel that you are sitting on and then overnight
> the price per barrel drops to 75.00 per barrel?  ON SALE HUH??  
>
>
>
>
>  *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Zach Mann 
> *Date:* 8/9/2012 4:45:42 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...
>
>
> Sweet!  It's on sale...
> On Aug 9, 2012 5:40 PM, "Doug Clark"  wrote:
> I just suddenly got very ill
>
>
>
>
> *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Faisal Imtiaz 
> *Date:* 8/9/2012 4:31:54 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...
>
> OUCH !
>
> Anyone following this stuff...
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ubnt
>
> --
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <305%20663%205518%20x%20232>
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 <305%20663%205518> option 2 Email: 
> Supp
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...

[Greg Ihnen]

The market never closes now

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:

> Exactly my thoughts!  I sold in May. (Sell in May and go away) and I'm
> just waiting for the right time to buy a load.
>
> Someone explain to me how after hours price drops happen?  Isn't the
> market closed?  What drives that?  I've never fully understood that part of
> the market.
>
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2012, at 18:57, Sam Tetherow  wrote:
>
> If you still have faith in the company, now is a good time to buy down
> your cost basis.
>
> On 08/09/2012 05:44 PM, Doug Clark wrote:
>
>Have you ever had 100,000 barrels of oil that you purchased at 110.00
> per barrel that you are sitting on and then overnight
> the price per barrel drops to 75.00 per barrel?  ON SALE HUH??  
>
>
>
>
>  *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Zach Mann 
> *Date:* 8/9/2012 4:45:42 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...
>
>
> Sweet!  It's on sale...
> On Aug 9, 2012 5:40 PM, "Doug Clark"  wrote:
> I just suddenly got very ill
>
>
>
>
> *---Original Message---*
>
>  *From:* Faisal Imtiaz 
> *Date:* 8/9/2012 4:31:54 PM
> *To:* WISPA General List 
> *Subject:* [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...
>
> OUCH !
>
> Anyone following this stuff...
>
> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ubnt
>
> --
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 <305%20663%205518%20x%20232>
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing 
> listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquity ... Stock Price .. News ...

[Greg Ihnen]

In the article

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11659630/1/ubiquiti-disappoints-nvidia-delights-tech-roundup.html?puc=TSMKTWATCH&cm_ven=TSMKTWATCH

UBNT management mentions the negative effects of counterfeit UBNT gear on their 
bottom line. Yikes! Imagine how that's going to effect us! I guess that's what 
happens when you do business in China.

It's interesting that the stock tanked after they basically met or exceeded 
street expectations.

Greg 
On Aug 9, 2012, at 6:01 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

> OUCH !
> 
> Anyone following this stuff...
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ubnt
> 
> -- 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
> 
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Picostation 2HP Question

[Greg Ihnen]

On the first tab on the left. They should have put it with the other
wireless settings.

Greg

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM, lakel...@gbcx.net  wrote:

> How do I turn off Airmax.  I don't see a setting for it
>
> - Reply message -
> From: "timothy steele" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Picostation 2HP Question
> Date: Tue, Aug 7, 2012 7:23 pm
>
>
> Turn AirMax off set to AP WDS
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> Is it running Airmax and the old one was a Pico (not M)?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jason Bailey  wrote:
>>
>>> What was the previous ap?
>>>
>>> --- On *Tue, 8/7/12, Bob Moldashel * wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Bob Moldashel 
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Picostation 2HP Question
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 6:58 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> OK   Quick question
>>>
>>> Have a unit new out of the box will not connect to any subs.  Set up as
>>> an AP, 20 Mhz channel, 2.4 Ghz channel 1.
>>>
>>> What am I missing???
>>>
>>> Any input is appreciated.
>>>
>>> -B-
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org <http://mc/compose?to=Wireless@wispa.org>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti Picostation 2HP Question

[Greg Ihnen]

Is airmax on or off?

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Bob Moldashel  wrote:

> OK   Quick question
>
> Have a unit new out of the box will not connect to any subs.  Set up as
> an AP, 20 Mhz channel, 2.4 Ghz channel 1.
>
> What am I missing???
>
> Any input is appreciated.
>
> -B-
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] 900 AP's and 2.4 AP's

[Greg Ihnen]

Upconverted?

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Josh Luthman
wrote:

> Canopy?  Next to none.
>
> Ubiquiti?  Watch out - 900 is downconvertered 2.4 =(
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, ~NGL~  wrote:
>
>> **
>> Is there any problem having 900 AP's and 2.4 AP's on the same tower? They
>> will be about 3 foot apart.
>> Thanx
>> NGL
>>
>>   If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
>> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
<>___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] trigger DFS for all your friends

[Greg Ihnen]

I couldn't see it either. I just get taken to a page with 1 album and 0
pics, and a spinning wheel.

I'm assuming it's a pic of some marginally legal device some ham had for
sale, probably something pulled from scrap or military surplus.

Greg

On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Eric Williams {WISP} <
w...@williamsteldata.com> wrote:

> Ralph the link you sent is to a add ? What is the DFS widget ?
>
> Eric Williams {W7EMW}
> Williams Tel Data / SDWISP
> The man with a secure wireless plan!
> 8130 La Mesa Bl #700
> La Mesa Ca 91942
> 619-698-3904 {office}
>
>
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:49:56 -0400
> > From: Ralph 
> > Subject: [WISPA] Real World example 5.4GHz  RADAR- and YOU can own it
> > To: 'WISPA General List' 
> > Message-ID: <006f01cd6d91$11c178f0$35446ad0$@org>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > You come across the weirdest things at a Hamfest!
> > Now you can trigger DFS for all your friends.
> >
> > I posted the info about it (minus the owner's info) at
> >
> > http://ads22.imgur.com/all
> >
> >
> > T H I S   I SN O TM I N E.
> >
> > I   A M   N O T  S E L L I N G   I T.
> >
> > I  D O   N O T  K N O W  W H O  H A S  I T  N O W
> >
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Grounding an Omnitik

[Greg]

+1

Here in the Amazon I've had plastic cased radios and their associated
router on the other end get taken out by nearby lightning strikes when the
mast the radio was on was attached to a large non-grounded metal roof on
top of a wooden frame. The fix was to mount the radios on grounded poles
(the poles go right down to the ground.). Grounding the roof might have
been an option but I doubt I could have grounded it good enough.

When in these houses when a nearby strike hits we often hear a big zap when
these roofs get a big induced voltage and it jumps to something on it's way
to ground. There's a flash and at the same time a zap, and that's our cue
to put our fingers in our ears before the BOOM.

Greg

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz  wrote:

>  Hi Chris,
>
> Radios enclosed in total plastic cases , don't need to be 'grounded'.
>
> Having said that.. you should consider grounding the Mast that it is
> mounted on.
>
> And additionally, you should consider using Ethernet cable that has a
> drain wire, shielded cable, shielded connectors , and make sure that the
> powersupply (POE) you are using is grounded.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
>
> On 7/7/2012 11:48 AM, Chris Stradtman wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>  I've never used an Omnitik before for roof work.  We're trying out the
> Omnitik + SXT combo in a location for roof to roof shots.
> I've figured out the grounding point for the SXT, however I can't seem to
> find a corresponding manual with that information for
> the Omnitik.  Is it possible to ground the Omnitik locally or do we have
> to do the shielded cat5 thing.  I'm also used to doing lightning suppression
> between the antenna and the AP, obviously this isn't possible with an
> integrated antenna setup.  Any additional pointers about lighting
> suppression on these things??
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Chris Stradtman
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing 
> listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios

[Greg Ihnen]

A good thing to know about the UBNT gear is if for some reason supplying PoE 
via the "main" port stops working, you can supply PoE via the "secondary" port 
whether or not the PoE passthrough option is enabled.

Greg

On May 29, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Carl Shivers wrote:

> Is this on the advanced tab? Also, I was reading where people enabled this 
> and then their radio was bricked??
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of timothy steele
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 1:14 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power over Ethernet Ubiquiti Radios
>  
> you have to enable POE Pass through in the GUI of the NSM
> 
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Carl Shivers  wrote:
> Our vendor told us that if we purchase the higher watt power adapter that we 
> can use the same power adapter for both our Nanostation and our Pico. Is 
> there a setting in the Nano we need to turn on for the second POE for the 
> Pico?
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
>  
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M

[Greg Ihnen]

That and AirMax got me more than once. I think it would be more intuitive if 
the AirMax selection box was on the Wireless tab.

Greg
On May 26, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Carl Shivers wrote:

> Thanks. The 20 MHz change did the trick. Good thing to remember.
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Joey Craig
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 9:05 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M
>  
> By default, they come set at 40 MHz. You will need to set it to 20 MHz for 
> your laptop and other equipment to associate to it.
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Carl Shivers
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:52 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Ubiquiti PicoStation M
>  
> On the advice of my vendor, I got a set of UBNT PicoStation Ms. For testing, 
> I turned off AirMax, put the radio in Access Point mode and bridge network. 
> When trying to connect various laptops to the radio, I get immediate 
> failures. It doesn’t matter if I give myself an address on my Wireless 
> adapter or plug the radio into my network, which has a DHCP server, 
> connections still fail. I have no security set for the test.
>  
> Any suggestions?
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Inexpensive alarm monitor

[Greg Ihnen]

I use a ControlByWeb X301(two inputs, two outputs) for remote control and 
monitoring. It can do SNMP as well as email alerts (not via SSL). They have 
other products that are just monitoring as well but they have multiple inputs. 
It may be more than you're looking for. However their support is great and 
their product is solid.

http://www.controlbyweb.com/

I am not affiliated or associated with them in any way. I'm just a satisfied 
customer.

Greg

On Mar 27, 2012, at 8:15 AM, Troy Settle wrote:

> We’ve recently installed generators at several sites, but have not yet found 
> an affordable solution for monitoring them.  Does anyone know of a simple 
> product that will enable me to monitor these things?  Everything I’ve found 
> is super expensive.  All I really need, is a simple device that can be wired 
> into the alarm contacts on the transfer switch.  I’m not (yet) concerned 
> about monitoring other metrics.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> --
>   Troy Settle, Network Administrator
>   The Wired Road Authority
>   1117 E. Stuart Dr.
>   Galax, VA 24333
>   (276) 238-0049 (office)
>   (276) 237-3890 (cell)
>   tset...@thewiredroad.net
>  
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] NanoStation M w/ Reflector Installs

[Greg Osborn]

  
  
There is nothing easy about the nanobridge install.  100% PITA and
the gain isn't very great.  10-12 db additional with a securalign or
kpp.  The power is much lower on the bridges also.  600 mw vs
200-300.

On 3/23/2012 12:03 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote:

  trying to standardize on a single radio platform with the NSM2.

On 3/23/2012 10:58 AM, m...@tc3net.com wrote:

  
Why not just use Nanobridge? They work well, and are cheaper then NS2/Reflector combo, and easier to install, probably at the same gain.

Regards
Michael Baird

- Original Message -
From: "Chris Gotstein"
To: "Ubiquiti Users Group", "WISPA General List"
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 11:55:11 AM
Subject: [WISPA] NanoStation M w/ Reflector Installs

We have decided to standardize on the NanoStationM2 for all our 2.4Ghz
installs.  At this time, the installers use the lights on the radio for
alignment.  When using a reflector, they are complaining that they can't
see the lights on the radio to align it.  Besides allowing them to login
to the radio to check signal, what are you guys doing to properly align
the NSM radios when using a reflector?  Is it as difficult as my
installers are making it out to be?


  
  


    
    -- 
  
Thanks
Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989
   

  

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

Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages

[Greg Ihnen]

Just replace it. It's probably failing. They're a pain when they start failing 
but when you get a good one they're fine.

Greg

On Mar 16, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Troy Settle wrote:

> Ok, so to keep to code, we have a GFCI outlet for most of our towers.  One of 
> them tripped last night, causing me to have to put on some 80 miles just to 
> push a button (yes, it could have been much worse).
>  
> Is there anything to prevent stupid outages like this from happening without 
> violating code?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> --
>   Troy Settle, Network Administrator
>   The Wired Road Authority
>   1117 E. Stuart Dr.
>   Galax, VA 24333
>   (276) 238-0049 (office)
>   (276) 237-3890 (cell)
>   tset...@thewiredroad.net
>  

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

Re: [WISPA] UBNT

[Greg Ihnen]

2¢ from the peanut gallery: Build for speed and future growth. Put the best you 
can up now, save a tower climb later.

Greg

On Mar 5, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe wrote:

> Thanks. At what point does it start to affect performance? Ie would there be 
> a difference on a 2mile 20MB back haul with high traffic?
> 
> 
> Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
> AS Technologies Ltd
> Tel. 234(0)8023258027
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the 
> intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, proprietary and/or 
> confidential information.  Any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution 
> or copying of this e-mail and any attachments for any purposes that have not 
> been specifically authorized by the sender is strictly prohibited.  If you 
> are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply 
> e-mail and permanently delete all copies and attachments.
> 
> The entire content of this e-mail is for "information purposes" only and 
> should not be relied upon by the recipient in any way unless otherwise 
> confirmed in writing by way of letter or facsimile
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Faisal Imtiaz 
> Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 08:30:04 
> To: aajayi...@as-technologies.com; WISPA 
> General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT
> 
> Hehe. ...   The same difference, as the weight difference in weight of 1kg of 
> water vs. 1kg of ice..
> 
> :)
> 
> On a serious note the only difference between the two units , for a short 
> link will be the amount of pps (packet per seconds) the radios can pass... 
> 
> The nano bridge have less memory and a slower CPU (I am going by memory 
> )..Powerbriges have same CPU and memory as the rockets...
> 
> Faisal
> 
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 3:33 AM, "Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe" 
>  wrote:
> 
>> My error. Airmax Nanobridge.
>> 
>> --Original Message--
>> From: Matt Hoppes
>> To: aajayi...@as-technologies.com
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Cc: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT
>> Sent: Mar 5, 2012 9:04 AM
>> 
>> What's an airbridge?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 1:31, "Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> What's the difference in performance between a powerbridge and and 
>>> airbridge on a 2mile 20MB link.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
>>> AS Technologies Ltd
>>> Tel. 234(0)8023258027
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the 
>>> intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, proprietary 
>>> and/or confidential information.  Any use, disclosure, dissemination, 
>>> distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachments for any purposes 
>>> that have not been specifically authorized by the sender is strictly 
>>> prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately 
>>> notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete all copies and 
>>> attachments.
>>> 
>>> The entire content of this e-mail is for "information purposes" only and 
>>> should not be relied upon by the recipient in any way unless otherwise 
>>> confirmed in writing by way of letter or facsimile
>>> ___
>>> Wireless mailing list
>>> Wireless@wispa.org
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
>> 
>> Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe
>> AS Technologies Ltd
>> Tel. 234(0)8023258027
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the 
>> intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, proprietary and/or 
>> confidential information.  Any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution 
>> or copying of this e-mail and any attachments for any purposes that have not 
>> been specifically authorized by the sender is strictly prohibited.  If you 
>> are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by 
>> reply e-mail and permanently delete all copies and attachments.
>> 
>> The entire content of this e-mail is for "information purposes" only and 
>> should not be relied upon by the recipient in any way unless otherwise 
>> confirmed in writing by way of letter or facsimile
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Excede (viasat-1) Satalitte Internet

[Greg Ihnen]

I'm not familiar with them but that service has got to have bandwidth caps like 
DirecWay. Also it's hard to believe that Skype and Vonage would work well 
because they must be over-sold (high contention ratio) at that price.

Greg
On Feb 29, 2012, at 8:58 PM, ~NGL~ wrote:

> Anyone run into Excede (viasat-1)  Satalitte Internet? They claim download 
> speeds of 12 Megs and can use Skype and Vonage for $60.00 per month and a 
> $149.95 setup fee.
> Any Comments?
> NGL
>  
> If you can read this Thank A Teacher.
> And if it's in English Thank A Soldier!
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] ethernet and towers with FM transmitters

[Greg Ihnen]

Something I've heard talked about in ham/engineering circles is don't have 
cable runs that are near a half wavelength or multiple half wavelengths of the 
frequency that's giving you trouble. It's a last ditch effort but it might be 
worth thinking about. Ferrites are great. When you put them along the cable 
again avoid half wave length intervals. You want to do everything to discourage 
the cable from resonating at the interfering frequency.

Greg
On Feb 29, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote:

> This problem is a bitch.  We're on a station that's "only" 20k watts and 
> Ethernet issues are severe.
> 
> We finally had pretty good luck by moving the radios down and running high 
> grade coax to the antennas.  We also run metal shielded cat5 with the proper 
> ends.
> 
> Finally I installed ferrite beads on both ends of all cat 5 runs.
> 
> Things are running pretty well now.  Turns out that cat5 and fm radio are 
> basically in the same frequency area.
> 
> My best advice?  Go find a different tower to use :-).
> 
> But it can be done.  All electronics in a metal enclosure also.  Jumper cat5 
> also needs to be shielded cable with grounded connectors.  Sometimes I put 
> ferrite beads on them as well.
> 
> marlon
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tim Warnock" 
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 6:15 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] ethernet and towers with FM transmitters
> 
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I have a question as to how other operators are handling POE radio links 
>> and
>> high power FM transmitters.
>> 
>> We often see things like a radio will run errors or drop to 10mbps instead
>> of 100mbps until we find a good position on the tower that its happy with.
>> Once its happy we never have an issue again.
>> 
>> We've tried earthing, not earthing, STP, UTP. Nothing seems to 
>> definitively
>> solve the issue.
>> 
>> Does anyone have any advice they'd like to share? It would be muchly
>> appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Tim
>> 
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless 
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Looking for service in Milwaukie Or.

[Greg Ihnen]

Dude,

That sounds really bad. Maybe you should word that differently?

Greg

On Feb 22, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181) wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> Can anyone service my sister?  I'd hate to send her to the cable co or 
> telco.
> 
> thanks!
> marlon
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 12:58 PM
> 
> 
>> 14332 se cedar ave
>> Milwaukie or 97267.
>> 
>> Thanks for your help
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T 
> 
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] LMR Cables

[Greg Osborn]

  
  
http://shop.sealwrap.com/SealWrap-Repair-Tape-SealWrap-TAPE.htm

    dielectric grease on the threads, then

  3m 33 electrical tape
  Seal wrap
  3m 33
  


On 2/8/2012 3:41 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
3M 2228 Rubber Mastic tape

-- 
  
Thanks
Greg Osborn
Tech Support and Field Service Manager
OnlyInternet.Net
1.800.363.0989
   

  




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Backhaul Link gone bonkers

[Greg Ihnen]

+1 on getting something that does spectral analysis.

Any new neighbors on the tower you're sharing? Any new gear they might have 
turned up?

Greg
On Jan 30, 2012, at 8:08 PM, Eric Rogers wrote:

> To me, that really sounds like interference.  Don't look at the noise
> floor.  Get a UBNT in spectrum analyzer mode, and let it run for a
> little bit.  I bet you find something bleeding over the frequency.
> 
> Eric
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Reed
> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:28 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Backhaul Link gone bonkers
> 
> Update after more work today.
> Replaced all the electronics at one end early this morning.  No real
> change.
> Replace the cable and antenna at that end this afternoon.  When we got 
> there the link was running with RSSI of around 67/70 and CCQ in the 50's
> 
> both ways.  Aligned the antenna and I watch the stats for a while while 
> the climber we getting the old antenna off of the tower.  Signal 
> strength went to around 57/65 and quality was running in the high 80s to
> 
> mid 90s.  Thought it was fixed.  Climber finished attaching new cable to
> 
> tower as he came down.  When He got to the bottom I checked things 
> again.  Signals are 67/70 and CCQ is all over the place.  I have seen 
> the CCQ jump from 90 to 14 at least once this evening.  It didn't drop 
> the link at 14, rather it climbed back up to nearly 80 and then dropped.
> I am at a complete loss as to what is going on.
> Oh, the last time I looked, noise floor was around -100 so SNR is 
> running 30 to 40.
> 
> On 1/29/2012 10:16 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> Planned for tomorrow.
>> 
>> On 1/29/2012 10:04 PM, Daniel White wrote:
>>> Maybe your replacement hardware is bad too.  Have you tried another
> set?
>>> 
>>> Daniel White
>>> (303) 746-3590
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
>>> Behalf Of Scott Reed
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 7:19 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Backhaul Link gone bonkers
>>> 
>>> One end is just us and the 4 other links there are fine.
>>> The other is is us and at least 2 other WISPS, an FM repeater
> station, some
>>> public service repeaters, some commercial 2-way repeaters and ...
>>> Just looking at the tower, I don't think there is anything new, but I
> will
>>> ask the tower owner tomorrow.
>>> We changed everything at one end and all but the cable at the other.
>>> Other 5GHz links we have for either tower do not show symptoms of
>>> interference, but that does not mean that isn't our problem.
>>> 
>>> On 1/28/2012 8:31 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>>>> If you replaced all gear and even tried a different coax in place of
> the
>>> 60' of LMR then it would have to be some kind of noise, coming in via
> the
>>> power lines or radiated. Who else is on the tower?
>>>> Did you only replace/try different gear on one tower or did you try
> both
>>> ends?
>>>> Have you done any spectral analysis?
>>>> 
>>>> Greg
>>>> On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I have a link that went bonkers last Saturday or Sunday and it has
> me
>>>>> stumped.
>>>>> RB433AH with XR5 at each end.
>>>>> Signals running around -69/-71.  CCQ is the goofy one.  Most of the
>>>>> time one direction is in the 50% range, but varies quite a bit.
> The
>>>>> other direction ranges from 16% to 100%.  Generally if I see it
>>>>> getting close to 100% I know the link is going to drop.  It comes
>>>>> right back up, usually at about 50%.
>>>>> I have tried 20MHz channels, 10MHz channels, 5MHz channels with
> about
>>>>> the same results from all.
>>>>> I have tried 5.2-5.3 frequencies and 5.7-5.8 frequencies.  The
> higher
>>>>> frequencies work better, but still not well.
>>>>> All of the hardware except one 60' piece of LMR as been replaced.
>>>>> Ask me some questions and offer some suggestions as this one has me
>>>>> totally stumped.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Scott Reed
>>>>> Owner
>>>>> NewWays Networking, LLC
>>>>> Wireless Networking
>>&g

Re: [WISPA] Backhaul Link gone bonkers

[Greg Ihnen]

If you replaced all gear and even tried a different coax in place of the 60' of 
LMR then it would have to be some kind of noise, coming in via the power lines 
or radiated. Who else is on the tower?

Did you only replace/try different gear on one tower or did you try both ends?

Have you done any spectral analysis?

Greg
On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:35 PM, Scott Reed wrote:

> I have a link that went bonkers last Saturday or Sunday and it has me 
> stumped.
> RB433AH with XR5 at each end.
> Signals running around -69/-71.  CCQ is the goofy one.  Most of the time 
> one direction is in the 50% range, but varies quite a bit.  The other 
> direction ranges from 16% to 100%.  Generally if I see it getting close 
> to 100% I know the link is going to drop.  It comes right back up, 
> usually at about 50%.
> I have tried 20MHz channels, 10MHz channels, 5MHz channels with about 
> the same results from all.
> I have tried 5.2-5.3 frequencies and 5.7-5.8 frequencies.  The higher 
> frequencies work better, but still not well.
> All of the hardware except one 60' piece of LMR as been replaced.
> Ask me some questions and offer some suggestions as this one has me 
> totally stumped.
> 
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
> 
> 
> 
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
> 
> www.nwwnet.net
> (765) 855-1060
> (765) 439-4253
> (855) 231-6239
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Cordless Phone Ring Interference

[Greg Ihnen]

Something about the ringing signal sent by the base to the handsets is 
different. My dad had wireless headphones that received a horrible pop when the 
cordless phone rang, but there was no interference when talking on the phone. 
That same phone used to interfere with 2.4 wifi. We switched to dect6 and never 
had any more problems.

Greg
On Dec 27, 2011, at 9:03 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

> Only thing is... he is reporting that the use of the phone does not 
> disconnect service, just the ringer ringing disconnects it.
> I'm not sure that the Ringer has anything to do with the 2.4Ghz spectrum 
> block. Or I should say, it would not use anymore spectrum ringing than 
> Talking. I'd guess talking would use more, with a constant stream going. 
> Buying a new phone could replicate the ringer problem.
> 
> I'd first confirm that it is in fact for sure just the ringer causing the 
> problem. Make sure its not a power related thing or something like a radio 
> power supply in same port as phone power supply, causing something to 
> reboot, etc. If your CPE has logs, check them to verify if association was 
> actually lost.
> 
> Most 2.4G phones that dont have selectable channels usually have sutomatic 
> selecting channels that select channel at a specific step. For example, 
> powering on the unit when the handset is in place, or hitting the find 
> receiver button, when handset is in place, or what ever mechanism it uses. 
> What you want to do is generate wifi noise on your Internet CPE radio or LAN 
> WIFI channels (persistent pings), so that when the phone searches for a 
> channel, it can hear noise on your channels, and can select something 
> different.
> 
> My advise is to get the model number of phone before going on site, and 
> using Internet to download the manual to review before initiating the tech 
> support insodent with the consumer. Use phone support, to walk the end user 
> through the proceedure of resetting the phone channel.  The advantage of 
> attempting a basic fix with the customer involved is that it gives you an 
> opportunity to educate the customer, to possibly avoid future unnecessary 
> tech support calls.
> 
> Although I would agree that buying  the end user a new phone would be more 
> cost effective than timely tech support on the WISP's dollar, I'd argue that 
> WISP offering to pay for the phone would be a mistake, as it sets the 
> presidence that you are willing to pay for things that aren't your problem. 
> The next thing you know you are buying customers new free routers and wifi 
> cards everytime there are unexplained issues with service.  What I'd 
> recommend is recommending to the client that "they" buy a new phone, because 
> phone are cheap, and maybe recommend a better brand. (Once you determine 
> what a better brand is, such as Dect6 ones recommended.).
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Josh Luthman" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference
> 
> 
> Definitely DECT phone.  Version doesn't matter - it's all in the 1.9 band.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff  wrote:
>> I would concur with this too
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:29 PM, "Brian Webster" 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> With the price of cordless phones now days and the cost of your customer
>>> support time, I would just buy them a new phone. If you get a DECT 6.0
>>> version you are certain not to have problems. Those are used exclusively 
>>> in
>>> the guard bands around the 1800 MHz PCS frequencies and are set aside
>>> specifically for cordless phones only. It's also fairly cheap to get a 
>>> multi
>>> extension set.
>>> 
>>> Thank You,
>>> Brian Webster
>>> www.wirelessmapping.com
>>> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Scott Reed
>>> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:11 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference
>>> 
>>> I have a customer that has determined that every time the phone rings, 
>>> the
>>> Internet goes down. Once the phone is answered, the 

Re: [WISPA] I'm new, I hope this is the right list...

[Greg Ihnen]

He joined a mission or a missionary? He got a missionary position?

Greg

On Nov 29, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> I heard you left to join a missionary. ;-)
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/29/2011 12:52 PM, Rick Kunze wrote:
>> Or as I like to phrase it: "You won't get rich in the WISP business,
>> but it beats working for a living."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Rk
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] Problem with Access to Canopy network

[Greg Ihnen]

It might be better to use an even less frequently used block of RFC1918/IANA 
reserved address space. I'd avoid the ones that most home routers use 
out-of-the-box which is usually in the 192.168.x.x range. The 10.x.x.x and 
172.16.x.x are more virgin territory.

Greg
On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:28 AM, David Williamson wrote:

> Yes, it is most likely the LAN subnet on the radio that is causing the 
> problem.  Microsoft made 169.254.x.x subnets non-routable beginning with 
> Windows Vista operating system.  We had this problem about almost two years 
> ago and once we finally figured it out, we just changed all of our radio LAN 
> subnets from 169.254.1.x  to 192.168.10.x subnet and it 100% solved this 
> problem.
>  
> This problem only exists with firmware 9.5 or higher if memory serves me 
> correctly, because I remember we initially rolled back firmware and it solved 
> the issue “temporarily”, but the long-term fix was to change all the LAN 
> subnets on the NAT’d radios.
>  
> I hope this helps.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> David Williamson
> Owner
> Custom Computers & Winchester Wireless
> 2979 Valley Avenue
> Winchester, VA 22601
> http://www.customcomputersva.com
> http://www.winchesterwireless.com
> Work 1: 540.722.9688 x223
> Work 2: 540-665-0800 x223
> Toll Free Fax: 877-765-3700
> da...@customcomputersva.com
> da...@winchesterwireless.com
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:52 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Problem with Access to Canopy network
>  
> Are you doing DHCP with the client radios? If so, I remember some having 
> problems if they used the 169.254.x.x private IP structure. Changing to 
> another private structure solved the problem.
>  
> Scottie Arnett
> President
> Info-Ed, Inc.
> Electronics and More
> 931-243-2101
> sarn...@info-ed.com
> - Original Message -
> From: rwall...@tigernet.us
> To: WISPA General List
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 7:07 AM
> Subject: [WISPA] Problem with Access to Canopy network
>  
> To All,
>  
> I have a problem with about 15 users not able to access the net.  Their PC's 
> network icon, lower right on quick launch toolbar - MS, has a yellow triangle 
> w/!.  indicating that their ethernet interface has no access.  Each user has 
> MS7. 
>  
> This is specific to one tower location and three of the four sectors, 2 
> Canopy 900's w/180* sectors, 2 Canopy 2.4's w/ 180* sectors.  At first we 
> thought it was specific to MS7 Users, that is still the case.  However, not 
> all MS7 users.  The setup of all CPE & AP devices is the same.
>  
> We have reset one 900 to factory default and reconfig'd that device with no 
> affect on the ability to access the net.
>  
> Any suggestions, advice, questions or direction would be greatly appreciated.
>  
> Ron Wallace
> Hahnron, Inc. (Tigernet Internet)
> rwall...@tigernet.us
> Phone:517-547-8410
> Cel:517-740-0941
>  
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Rocket GPS 5.7ghz PtP

[Greg Ihnen]

For clarity I think your statement needs to be expanded on just to make sure 
the strong points of GPS isn't lost.

For a single AP/PtP/PtMP link that's not geographically close to another AP 
which could cause mutual interference, performance with GPS on will be less 
than without GPS.

For a situation with multiple APs/PtP/PtMP links geographically close enough to 
each other so that they would cause mutual interference  then performance with 
GPS on will be better than without GPS.

GPS helps in a very specific situation for which it is intended.

Does anyone know if enabling GPS on with a solitary MOTO link causes a 
degradation? It seems like if it's designed and implemented right it wouldn't 
cause a degradation.

Greg

On Nov 9, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

> Below attached email is  the closest detailed description of someone 
> running Rocket M with GPS, was posted on WISPA_UBNT list.
> 
> Folks @ Ubiquity have stated this before...
> The GPS option is not to get more Performance  on a single link... but 
> is to allow  radios (AP's) to exist on the same tower or roof top to use 
> overlapping frequencies when pointing in different directions.. and 
> provide stable performance under these circumstances...
> 
> i.e. performance with GPS on will be less than without GPS.
> 
> and FWIW.. check the firmware you are using.. 5.4.3 is more stable, but 
> 5.5beta4 is also getting close to a full release..
> 
> 
> =
> On 6/24/2011 3:45 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
>> I wanted to touch base as this is our first case of actually using 
>> GPS/AirSync.  We have 2 dishes shooting about 15-20 degrees off of 
>> each other, same height, about 7' of separation.  One link is 14 
>> miles, the other 32 miles.  Channel 5805 and 5825 and 20mhz Channels.
>> 
>> Airsync off, both transferring data:
>> 8x1Mbps each (best case, some tests wouldn't even work)
>> pings all over the place
>> 
>> Airsync on, both transferring data:
>> 30x23Mbps on 32 miles
>> 40x30Mbps on 14 miles
>> pings stable
>> 
>> Airsync off, only one passing traffic:
>> 70Mbps transmit one way
>> 30Mbps receive one way
>> 
>> Very happy to see Airsync do it's job, but would be nice to have more 
>> bandwidth.  The signals are -57 on each link with a noise floor of 
>> -91.  We do have a larger dish on the 32 mile link.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Chuck
> 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet&  Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
> 
> 
> On 11/9/2011 7:28 PM, Matt wrote:
>>> They aren't really designed to work at 5 feet.  There has to be a ton of
>>> multipath.
>> That MIGHT be true.  But I have power turned all way down and aligned
>> carefully at 40+ foot.  Without GPS turned on throughput is as
>> expected.  So I assume it is not a multipath issue.  Either GPS sync
>> does not like that close range due to some timing issue or GPS sync
>> just works poorly.
>> 
>>> From looking at Ubiquiti forums I am guessing the latter.
>> 
>> Am using Mikrotik to test and not the built in test.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] UBNT sectors 120s, 90s, or 60s?

[Greg Ihnen]

They both have separate feeds. The folks doing OSCAR feed the two antennas with 
splitters and phasing lines to feed the same signal to both antennas. To 
achieve the phase shift some use the antennas in the same plane and feed them 
out of phase with phasing lines. Another approach is to feed them in phase but 
shift one antenna forward or back. Either way produces circular polarization. 
But the key part of the OSCAR operation is the same signal goes to both 
antennas.

Obviously with the MIMO stuff it's independent signals to each antenna.

Greg
On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

> No.  The OSCAR circular-polarized antennas had a feed split between the V and 
> H antennas, which each had a driven element.  The MIMO ones have independent 
> feeds.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Boost Your WiFi Signal Using Only a Beer Can

[Greg Ihnen]

I did the cardboard cut-out covered in aluminum foil parabola on Linksys rubber 
duckies back in the dark ages.

Greg
On Oct 24, 2011, at 8:25 AM, Cliff Leboeuf wrote:

> http://dsc.discovery.com/gear-gadgets/boost-your-wifi-signal-using-only-a-beer-can.html#mkcpgn=otbn1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Pulling my hair out

[Greg Ihnen]

Do you apply it only in special cases or would you do it as standard procedure 
on CPEs? It seems like something that when you need it it's too late to put it 
in.

Greg
On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:

> On 10/07/2011 12:59 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>> Is that enough to keep a bad CPE from taking down the AP?
> 
> In general, I'd say yes.  I would look it as a tool to keep things calm 
> long enough to fix the real problem rather than a permanent fix.
> 
> -Kristian
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Pulling my hair out

[Greg Ihnen]

Is that enough to keep a bad CPE from taking down the AP?

Greg
On Oct 7, 2011, at 3:23 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:

> On 10/06/2011 05:52 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> Two reasons for the post:
>>  1) Clients can cause the whole AP to misbehave.
>>  2) Anyone have any trouble shooting tips on how to know whether to
>> check AP or clients first?
>> 
> 
> In the worst conditions, a MT CPE with default configuration will 
> retransmit the same frame 200-300 times per second at the lowest rate, 
> consuming all available bandwidth.  I've observed this in the field and 
> on the bench.  Getting stats from the AP/CPE to easily show when this is 
> happening has proven quite difficult.  I had to use a third station to 
> do a TZSP sniff and analyze the data in wireshark in order to observe it.
> 
> Setting frame-lifetime=1 (1 centi-second/10milliseconds), will drop that 
> number to 20-30 frames per second.  It sets a hard limit to how long the 
> AP or CPE will spend retransmitting the same frame.  So to answer your 
> second question, you can try setting frame-lifetime=1 on all the CPEs.  
> It shouldn't make a difference on good CPEs, but it will likely make the 
> bad CPEs worse, bringing them to light.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> -- 
> Kristian Hoffmann
> System Administrator
> kh...@fire2wire.com
> http://www.fire2wire.com
> 
> Office - 209-543-1800 | Fax - 209-545-1469 | Toll Free - 800-905-FIRE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Open Range Closes: Broadband's Solyndra @$240M???

[Greg Ihnen]

It could have been a total scam from the start, but if it was on the up and up 
then they were probably betting that with enough money and time they would 
perfect the technology or manufacturing or what ever it would take to work the 
kinks out and become profitable.

The allure of solar is the impressive amount of energy that falls on a square 
meter. If solar-electric panel manufacturers could get the efficiency well over 
50% it would be a game changer.

What a shame all that money went down the toilet. If there were no viable solar 
companies that could have made real innovations with that money then it should 
have gone elsewhere.

Greg
On Oct 5, 2011, at 6:00 PM, Tom Sharples wrote:

> I'm not familiar with the details on the Open Range deal, however it would be 
> unsurprising if the government (taxpayer) ends up being the sucker.  That's 
> the order of the day (and the last 10 years). The Solyndra deal for example 
> not only rings of crony capitalism but a lack of the most basic technical due 
> diligence. Even the named inventor on their patents stated that the design 
> was unbuildable at reasonable cost. Would you buy a solar power system that 
> came with an oil leak disposal kit as a standard accessory?
> 
> Tom S.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/5/2011 3:01 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> 
>> At 10/5/2011 05:46 PM, Tom Sharples wrote:
>>> Caution - this may make your ears bleed - strong language :-) 
>>>   
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM 
>> 
>> Yeah, but under the rapper profanity, he displays a profound ignorance of 
>> macroeconomics and monetary policy.  There's a reason that economics is 
>> called "the dismal science".  It is  not intuitively obvious, and is thus 
>> prone to demagoguery.
>> 
>> Open Range, on the other hand, appears to be a simple case of JP Morgan's 
>> influence peddling to get a big loan for a risky venture from the Bush 
>> administration.  I wonder if they will end up losing their bet, or if there 
>> is some trick in there to get JP Morgan Chase paid back.  Note how Iridium 
>> was Motorola's idea, and lost several billion, but Motorola came out ahead 
>> (and Chase, being the marks that time, lost).
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10/5/2011 2:21 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: 
>>>> At 10/5/2011 04:20 PM, Rafman® wrote:
>>>>> Open Range Closes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/10/05/open-range-closes/
>>>>> 
>>>>> Broadband's Solyndra with $240M Federal Funds..?
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting, but not surprising given the whole story.
>>>> 
>>>> The RUS (part of the USDA) usually just funds incumbent LECs, not WISPs.  
>>>> In 2008, Open Range got $100M from JP Morgan Chase and then a bigger RUS 
>>>> loan.  The plan was to use Globalstar's ATC frequencies.  
>>>> 
>>>> Globalstar was a low Earth orbit satellite (LEOsat) constallation launched 
>>>> in the late 1990s.  I think Qualcomm was originally behind it; the idea 
>>>> was to be a simple bent-pipe repeater for CDMA satphones.  They were 
>>>> competing with the uber-baroque Iridium network, which of course bombed 
>>>> miserably (I had a bit of an inside seat watching that failure; it was 
>>>> kind of funny). GlobalStar's original satellites kind of went haywire in 
>>>> 2007 and some of the replacements have been flaky too, which is not doing 
>>>> them a lot of good.
>>>> 
>>>> Satellites were granted ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) rights as a 
>>>> way to fill in gaps in satellite coverage; later this was expanded to 
>>>> permit terrestrial-only users.  That's what LightSquared is trying to do.  
>>>> Open Range made a deal to use GlobalStar's ATC, but something went wrong 
>>>> and the FCC revoked it in 2010.  So Open Range has some license problems.  
>>>> All that money and no place to go.  They were also trying to make a deal 
>>>> with LightSquared, but I think that was for MVNO use of the network, not 
>>>> frequency leases.  
>>>> 
>>>> I think the key difference between Open Range and your basic WISP is that 
>>>> Open Range wanted to play Wall Street's game:  Take a lot of money, spend 
>>>> big and fast, and hope for a return.  A WISPA member can't afford to waste 
>>>> money that way.  I wonder if Open Range has much cash left.  I don't see 
>>>> how they 

Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites

[Greg Ihnen]

It sounds to me like Pat's issue is the power is bad enough there that the UPS 
is going to invert often and it's killing his batteries because the UPS charges 
a lot more slowly than it discharges the batteries when it's inverting. There's 
a ratio of invert to charge time that if you exceed it can't keep up. I suspect 
if he just added a battery charger to what he's presently got he would find his 
batteries would last as they should. That would explain the battery issue, but 
why are the UPS going bad?

Greg

On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> If you are NOT worried about uptime, you could get an APC 1500 or 2200 with 
> an AP9617.  Those units are quite good, but they're AC/DC/AC/DC from utility 
> to your radios.  I think 80 watts gets you an hour of uptime?
> 
> I've never had a unit go bad, I always buy refurb'ed units and new batteries. 
>  Running three of them for a couple of years now.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
>  wrote:
> I thought like +/- $200.00
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:40 PM
> 
> 
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
> 
>  
> 
> How much do you want to spend?
> 
>  
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What’s a good model to look for?  They seem kind of pricey.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
> 
>  
> 
> I was going to mention Xantrex as a contender. They used to be Trace 
> Engineering. They make a decent inverter. Tripp Lite makes some special high 
> quality high reliability inverters for things like ambulances if you need 
> something a cut above. The cream of the crop is the Outback.
> 
>  
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have had good luck with some of my servers using a xantrex inverter/charger 
> and a pile of wal-mart car batteries.  It's not pretty but I have had no 
> power drops in a couple of years.  Since the unit is designed for RVs etc, it 
> will keep the 12v pile charged even in the face of 12v drain, so you can 
> drive both 120vac and 12vdc loads off the same setup.  It will charge the 
> batteries when they need it and ac is available, and float them after they 
> are charged, and use the batteries to provide ac if the mains ac disappears.  
> You decide how big a pile of batteries to attach...
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
>  wrote:
> 
> Whatever works best for reasonable $ :-)  it's been a nightmare so far. 
> Starting to upset customers. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:55 AM, "Chris Hudson"  wrote:
> 
> Is this just while using the Jack? Via POE, 24V is the way to go.. IMO.
> 
>  
> 
> Do you want to make a full conversion to DC? Or just replace the typical UPS 
> setup?
> 
>  
> 
> Chris
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Justin Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:52 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
> 
>  
> 
> Careful on powering most Mikrotiks with 24 volt.  We have found, 
> and verified with roc-noc and some others, that many of the MT boards will 
> get hot with 24 volts to the DC jack and lockup and other weirdness.
> 
>  
> 
> Justin
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> Justin Wilson  
> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
> http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
> http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
> 
>  
> 
> From: "Patrick D. Nix, Jr" 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:45:49 -0500
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
> 
>  
> 
> Currently we are having some horrible issues with power at our tower sites.  
> Our current configuration is that we have tripplite smart 500VA rackmout UPS 
> connected to deep cycle marine battery.  This seems to work OK for a month or 
> so and then kills either the battery or the UPS or both.  We then notice that 
> the equipment at the tower will power o

Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites

[Greg Ihnen]

Wow, that's scraping the bottom of the barrel. At that price you might be able 
to get something from Tripplite that includes charger if you find a really good 
deal.

Greg

On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:

> I thought like +/- $200.00
>  
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:40 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> How much do you want to spend?
>  
> Greg
>  
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:
> 
> 
> What’s a good model to look for?  They seem kind of pricey.
>  
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> I was going to mention Xantrex as a contender. They used to be Trace 
> Engineering. They make a decent inverter. Tripp Lite makes some special high 
> quality high reliability inverters for things like ambulances if you need 
> something a cut above. The cream of the crop is the Outback.
>  
> Greg
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had good luck with some of my servers using a xantrex inverter/charger 
> and a pile of wal-mart car batteries.  It's not pretty but I have had no 
> power drops in a couple of years.  Since the unit is designed for RVs etc, it 
> will keep the 12v pile charged even in the face of 12v drain, so you can 
> drive both 120vac and 12vdc loads off the same setup.  It will charge the 
> batteries when they need it and ac is available, and float them after they 
> are charged, and use the batteries to provide ac if the mains ac disappears.  
> You decide how big a pile of batteries to attach...
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
>  wrote:
> Whatever works best for reasonable $ :-)  it's been a nightmare so far. 
> Starting to upset customers. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:55 AM, "Chris Hudson"  wrote:
> 
> Is this just while using the Jack? Via POE, 24V is the way to go.. IMO.
>  
> Do you want to make a full conversion to DC? Or just replace the typical UPS 
> setup?
>  
> Chris
>  
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Justin Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:52 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> Careful on powering most Mikrotiks with 24 volt.  We have found, 
> and verified with roc-noc and some others, that many of the MT boards will 
> get hot with 24 volts to the DC jack and lockup and other weirdness.
>  
> Justin
>  
> --
> Justin Wilson  
> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
> http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
> http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
>  
> From: "Patrick D. Nix, Jr" 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:45:49 -0500
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> Currently we are having some horrible issues with power at our tower sites.  
> Our current configuration is that we have tripplite smart 500VA rackmout UPS 
> connected to deep cycle marine battery.  This seems to work OK for a month or 
> so and then kills either the battery or the UPS or both.  We then notice that 
> the equipment at the tower will power off (battery shuts down for about 10 
> min) and then powers back on.  This happens almost daily and in some cases 
> multiple times in a day.  I think it may have to do with the output volts of 
> the battery not being high enough for the UPS to operate.  We are desperately 
> looking for other alternatives to what we are doing to resolve this issue.  
> Most equipment will operate at 12/24 volt.  1x Mikrotik, 2x Trango AP, 2x 
> Trango Link45, 4x UBNT Rocket.  Any suggestions are appreciated.
>  
> Pat
> Csweb.net
> 
>  WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 
> 
>  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: 
> http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3908 - Release Date: 09/20/11
> 
> 
> 
> --

Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites

[Greg Ihnen]

How much do you want to spend?

Greg

On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:

> What’s a good model to look for?  They seem kind of pricey.
>  
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> I was going to mention Xantrex as a contender. They used to be Trace 
> Engineering. They make a decent inverter. Tripp Lite makes some special high 
> quality high reliability inverters for things like ambulances if you need 
> something a cut above. The cream of the crop is the Outback.
>  
> Greg
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> 
> 
> I have had good luck with some of my servers using a xantrex inverter/charger 
> and a pile of wal-mart car batteries.  It's not pretty but I have had no 
> power drops in a couple of years.  Since the unit is designed for RVs etc, it 
> will keep the 12v pile charged even in the face of 12v drain, so you can 
> drive both 120vac and 12vdc loads off the same setup.  It will charge the 
> batteries when they need it and ac is available, and float them after they 
> are charged, and use the batteries to provide ac if the mains ac disappears.  
> You decide how big a pile of batteries to attach...
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
>  wrote:
> Whatever works best for reasonable $ :-)  it's been a nightmare so far. 
> Starting to upset customers. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:55 AM, "Chris Hudson"  wrote:
> 
> Is this just while using the Jack? Via POE, 24V is the way to go.. IMO.
>  
> Do you want to make a full conversion to DC? Or just replace the typical UPS 
> setup?
>  
> Chris
>  
>  
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Justin Wilson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:52 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> Careful on powering most Mikrotiks with 24 volt.  We have found, 
> and verified with roc-noc and some others, that many of the MT boards will 
> get hot with 24 volts to the DC jack and lockup and other weirdness.
>  
> Justin
>  
> --
> Justin Wilson  
> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
> http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
> http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
>  
> From: "Patrick D. Nix, Jr" 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:45:49 -0500
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>  
> Currently we are having some horrible issues with power at our tower sites.  
> Our current configuration is that we have tripplite smart 500VA rackmout UPS 
> connected to deep cycle marine battery.  This seems to work OK for a month or 
> so and then kills either the battery or the UPS or both.  We then notice that 
> the equipment at the tower will power off (battery shuts down for about 10 
> min) and then powers back on.  This happens almost daily and in some cases 
> multiple times in a day.  I think it may have to do with the output volts of 
> the battery not being high enough for the UPS to operate.  We are desperately 
> looking for other alternatives to what we are doing to resolve this issue.  
> Most equipment will operate at 12/24 volt.  1x Mikrotik, 2x Trango AP, 2x 
> Trango Link45, 4x UBNT Rocket.  Any suggestions are appreciated.
>  
> Pat
> Csweb.net
> 
>  WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 
> 
>  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: 
> http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3908 - Release Date: 09/20/11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --

Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites

[Greg Ihnen]

I was going to mention Xantrex as a contender. They used to be Trace 
Engineering. They make a decent inverter. Tripp Lite makes some special high 
quality high reliability inverters for things like ambulances if you need 
something a cut above. The cream of the crop is the Outback.

Greg
On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:

> I have had good luck with some of my servers using a xantrex inverter/charger 
> and a pile of wal-mart car batteries.  It's not pretty but I have had no 
> power drops in a couple of years.  Since the unit is designed for RVs etc, it 
> will keep the 12v pile charged even in the face of 12v drain, so you can 
> drive both 120vac and 12vdc loads off the same setup.  It will charge the 
> batteries when they need it and ac is available, and float them after they 
> are charged, and use the batteries to provide ac if the mains ac disappears.  
> You decide how big a pile of batteries to attach...
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr 
>  wrote:
> Whatever works best for reasonable $ :-)  it's been a nightmare so far. 
> Starting to upset customers. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:55 AM, "Chris Hudson"  wrote:
> 
>> Is this just while using the Jack? Via POE, 24V is the way to go.. IMO.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Do you want to make a full conversion to DC? Or just replace the typical UPS 
>> setup?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Justin Wilson
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:52 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Careful on powering most Mikrotiks with 24 volt.  We have found, 
>> and verified with roc-noc and some others, that many of the MT boards will 
>> get hot with 24 volts to the DC jack and lockup and other weirdness.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Justin
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Justin Wilson  
>> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
>> http://www.mtin.net/blog – xISP News
>> http://www.twitter.com/j2sw – Follow me on Twitter
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: "Patrick D. Nix, Jr" 
>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 11:45:49 -0500
>> To: WISPA General List 
>> Subject: [WISPA] Power for tower sites
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Currently we are having some horrible issues with power at our tower sites.  
>> Our current configuration is that we have tripplite smart 500VA rackmout UPS 
>> connected to deep cycle marine battery.  This seems to work OK for a month 
>> or so and then kills either the battery or the UPS or both.  We then notice 
>> that the equipment at the tower will power off (battery shuts down for about 
>> 10 min) and then powers back on.  This happens almost daily and in some 
>> cases multiple times in a day.  I think it may have to do with the output 
>> volts of the battery not being high enough for the UPS to operate.  We are 
>> desperately looking for other alternatives to what we are doing to resolve 
>> this issue.  Most equipment will operate at 12/24 volt.  1x Mikrotik, 2x 
>> Trango AP, 2x Trango Link45, 4x UBNT Rocket.  Any suggestions are 
>> appreciated.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> Csweb.net
>> 
>> 
>>  WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ 
>> 
>>  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: 
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: 
>> http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>> 
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3908 - Release Date: 09/20/11
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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!
&

Re: [WISPA] Power for tower sites

[Greg Ihnen]

Do you need 120vac? I have a fair amount of experience with inverters, which 
basically is a UPS that doesn't come with a battery. I find them to be much 
better quality than a UPS. I would definitely use an inverter before I'd use a 
UPS. I realize the UPS have monitoring and remote control features that you 
might not get with inverters but I'd add something to give me that 
functionality.

One feature you'll get with the better inverters is the ability to tailor your 
charge cycle and depth of discharge before the LVD kicks in to your battery 
bank.

If you have the capacity to justify an Outback brand inverter they are great. 
We use them in the Amazon where we get some wicked lightning and they do really 
good. Some Engineers that used to be with Trace left and started Outback.

If you don't need 120vac and could use just 12 and 24vdc I'd use separate 
battery banks for both voltages with a good battery charger that charges each 
12 volt cell individually even though they're in series. I know of a good 
charger (I can't think of the brand right now) that does multiple cells. It's 
basically a bank of chargers in once case. It maintains each battery perfectly 
according to it's own needs. Though that charger is not adjustable, it's 
strictly for normal lead acid deep cycle batteries.

Greg

On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:15 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote:

> Currently we are having some horrible issues with power at our tower sites.  
> Our current configuration is that we have tripplite smart 500VA rackmout UPS 
> connected to deep cycle marine battery.  This seems to work OK for a month or 
> so and then kills either the battery or the UPS or both.  We then notice that 
> the equipment at the tower will power off (battery shuts down for about 10 
> min) and then powers back on.  This happens almost daily and in some cases 
> multiple times in a day.  I think it may have to do with the output volts of 
> the battery not being high enough for the UPS to operate.  We are desperately 
> looking for other alternatives to what we are doing to resolve this issue.  
> Most equipment will operate at 12/24 volt.  1x Mikrotik, 2x Trango AP, 2x 
> Trango Link45, 4x UBNT Rocket.  Any suggestions are appreciated.
>  
> Pat
> Csweb.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/

Re: [WISPA] [WUG] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

[Greg Ihnen]

Well for us it's "a blessing". We live in the jungle and have only a satellite 
internet connection for contact from the outside world. No landlines, no cell 
coverage, nada.

On a poor connection where Skype works great Vonage breaks down. I've tried a 
few other VoIP services. So far Skype out performs them all.

I'm literally writing you this from a little mud walled, thatched roof house in 
an Indian village. I'm in my hammock under a mosquito net with my Macbook Pro 
on my lap.

Greg
http://gregihnen.me

On Sep 14, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote:

> On 14 September 2011 18:58, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> Skype is P2P, literally. The makers of Kazaa made Skype.
> 
> Unfortunately, it has entrenched itself in the populous. It is here to stay, 
> as stupid as it is. Why anyone would want to call another person through 
> their computer, wearing some uncomfortable headset that sounds like shit, 
> when they could pick up a real phone and dial is beyond me. I guess people 
> are just that cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] [WUG] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

[Greg Ihnen]

It's Microsoft now so it's been blessed.

Yes, it's a peer to peer based system though they maintain POPs for their 
SkypeOut (to/from landlines) service. Skype is stealthy. I find it to be a 
great quickie network troubleshooting tool. Nothing else works but Skype? Then 
you probably have a DNS issue. Skype can stay alive without DNS. Though pinging 
a known IP address is also an easy test.

Greg

On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> Skype is P2P, literally. The makers of Kazaa made Skype.
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> On 9/14/2011 3:17 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> 
>> If the p2p is acting like Skype traffic there is nothing you can do.  If the 
>> two protocols are getting similar, a finer Skype match will work.  If Skype 
>> changed their methodology then you'll need to come up with a layer 7 rule.
>> 
>> Where did you get the rules you have now?
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>> Yeah, on the high latency, high jitter low bandwidth connection we have here 
>> the prioritization and bandwidth limiting of the various protocols and kinds 
>> of traffic makes all the difference between Skype being unusable to being 
>> almost perfect.
>> 
>> On a side now, I had to downgrade from ROS 5.6 to 4.17 because the log was 
>> full of error relating to the L7 processing. There's a thread over on the MT 
>> forum.
>> 
>> Greg
>> On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> 
>>> >MT's L7 Skype regex 
>>> 
>>> The rules inside of this monster?
>>> 
>>> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Basic_traffic_shaping_based_on_layer-7_protocols
>>> 
>>> Do you have to prioritize Skype?
>>> 
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>> 
>>>I've gotten so much out of these forums. I appreciate you letting me 
>>> be a part of them. I had an idea which I don't know if it would be of 
>>> interest to anyone here but I hope it is. It has to do with bandwidth 
>>> management and P2P and Skype and their interaction in MT's RouterOS.
>>> 
>>>I've noticed some P2P traffic gets picked up by the L7 regex for 
>>> Skype. Since anyone doing bandwidth management for both Skype and P2P is 
>>> probably trying to prioritize Skype and de-prioritize P2P and MT's 
>>> confusing the two is going to have negative consequences. Having the P2P 
>>> traffic get into Skype's queue does the exact opposite of what I'm trying 
>>> to do.
>>> 
>>>You'll see when MT's L7 Skype regex is misidentifying P2P traffic as 
>>> Skype traffic is the inbound and outbound traffic will be greatly 
>>> unbalanced, much more so than even if one side was doing voice and video 
>>> and the other side was just doing voice. I was seeing hundreds of Kbps down 
>>> and one or two Kbps up on the Skype queues. I knew that wasn't right. I 
>>> looked and sure enough there was bit torrent activity going on. I wonder if 
>>> some of these bit torrent clients don't try to make their traffic appear to 
>>> be traffic of legit apps.
>>> 
>>>I'm using a modified version of Butch's script. What I'm doing with 
>>> regard to Skype and P2P to correct this problem is the part of the script 
>>> that detects P2P traffic keeps a list of the local users's IPs. I have the 
>>> part of the script that prioritizes Skype ignore the user's traffic if 
>>> they're one of the P2P'ers. That means not only does their P2P work poorly 
>>> but their Skyping is not going to be as good as it would if they weren't 
>>> messing around with P2P. I'm very heavily trying to discourage P2P here.
>>> 
>>> Greg
>>> ---
>>> Wireless Users Group   us...@wug.cc
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.or

Re: [WISPA] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

[Greg Ihnen]

I've tried other VoIP services and protocols and none worked as good on our 
poor quality connection.

Is there one you'd recommend that works well on low bandwidth connections?

We have a 1Mbps down/256kbps up satellite connection. Our big problem is the 
uplink bandwidth never approaches 256k. Also our connection is high contention 
in satellite internet lingo (highly oversold). That translates into a lot of 
jitter as sometimes we have to wait our turn to get a piece of the bandwidth.

Greg

On Sep 14, 2011, at 6:27 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> Use a real VoIP or video program and not Skype. :-)
> 
> Skype is absolutely terrible, it's just a P2P system that moves live 
> content.
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/14/2011 2:28 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
>> Guys,
>> 
>>  I've gotten so much out of these forums. I appreciate you letting me be 
>> a part of them. I had an idea which I don't know if it would be of interest 
>> to anyone here but I hope it is. It has to do with bandwidth management and 
>> P2P and Skype and their interaction in MT's RouterOS.
>> 
>>  I've noticed some P2P traffic gets picked up by the L7 regex for Skype. 
>> Since anyone doing bandwidth management for both Skype and P2P is probably 
>> trying to prioritize Skype and de-prioritize P2P and MT's confusing the two 
>> is going to have negative consequences. Having the P2P traffic get into 
>> Skype's queue does the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do.
>> 
>>  You'll see when MT's L7 Skype regex is misidentifying P2P traffic as 
>> Skype traffic is the inbound and outbound traffic will be greatly 
>> unbalanced, much more so than even if one side was doing voice and video and 
>> the other side was just doing voice. I was seeing hundreds of Kbps down and 
>> one or two Kbps up on the Skype queues. I knew that wasn't right. I looked 
>> and sure enough there was bit torrent activity going on. I wonder if some of 
>> these bit torrent clients don't try to make their traffic appear to be 
>> traffic of legit apps.
>> 
>>  I'm using a modified version of Butch's script. What I'm doing with 
>> regard to Skype and P2P to correct this problem is the part of the script 
>> that detects P2P traffic keeps a list of the local users's IPs. I have the 
>> part of the script that prioritizes Skype ignore the user's traffic if 
>> they're one of the P2P'ers. That means not only does their P2P work poorly 
>> but their Skyping is not going to be as good as it would if they weren't 
>> messing around with P2P. I'm very heavily trying to discourage P2P here.
>> 
>> Greg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.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] [WUG] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

[Greg Ihnen]

From SourceForge - the mother-of-all-L7-rules: 
http://l7-filter.sourceforge.net/protocols

The fix I wrote below works nicely because it keeps the Skype queue clean of 
P2P traffic.

I don't know if the P2P stuff is intentionally trying to masquerade it's 
traffic as Skype, but the bottom line is it was getting tagged by the L7 regex 
tests as Skype traffic when it wasn't. The good news is there was enough 
telltale P2P activity which was positively getting flagged as P2P to show me 
without a doubt who's the offender.

In a perfect world the traffic would be identified and queued perfectly. The 
the real world it's not but a perfect solution is to not give the P2Pers access 
to the Skype queue, which keeps their P2P traffic out of that high priority 
queue. There's also some penalty there for the P2Pers, their Skype isn't going 
to work as good. It's win-win as I see it.

Greg

On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:47 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> If the p2p is acting like Skype traffic there is nothing you can do.  If the 
> two protocols are getting similar, a finer Skype match will work.  If Skype 
> changed their methodology then you'll need to come up with a layer 7 rule.
> 
> Where did you get the rules you have now?
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> Yeah, on the high latency, high jitter low bandwidth connection we have here 
> the prioritization and bandwidth limiting of the various protocols and kinds 
> of traffic makes all the difference between Skype being unusable to being 
> almost perfect.
> 
> On a side now, I had to downgrade from ROS 5.6 to 4.17 because the log was 
> full of error relating to the L7 processing. There's a thread over on the MT 
> forum.
> 
> Greg
> On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> 
>> >MT's L7 Skype regex 
>> 
>> The rules inside of this monster?
>> 
>> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Basic_traffic_shaping_based_on_layer-7_protocols
>> 
>> Do you have to prioritize Skype?
>> 
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
>> Guys,
>> 
>>I've gotten so much out of these forums. I appreciate you letting me 
>> be a part of them. I had an idea which I don't know if it would be of 
>> interest to anyone here but I hope it is. It has to do with bandwidth 
>> management and P2P and Skype and their interaction in MT's RouterOS.
>> 
>>I've noticed some P2P traffic gets picked up by the L7 regex for 
>> Skype. Since anyone doing bandwidth management for both Skype and P2P is 
>> probably trying to prioritize Skype and de-prioritize P2P and MT's confusing 
>> the two is going to have negative consequences. Having the P2P traffic get 
>> into Skype's queue does the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do.
>> 
>>You'll see when MT's L7 Skype regex is misidentifying P2P traffic as 
>> Skype traffic is the inbound and outbound traffic will be greatly 
>> unbalanced, much more so than even if one side was doing voice and video and 
>> the other side was just doing voice. I was seeing hundreds of Kbps down and 
>> one or two Kbps up on the Skype queues. I knew that wasn't right. I looked 
>> and sure enough there was bit torrent activity going on. I wonder if some of 
>> these bit torrent clients don't try to make their traffic appear to be 
>> traffic of legit apps.
>> 
>>I'm using a modified version of Butch's script. What I'm doing with 
>> regard to Skype and P2P to correct this problem is the part of the script 
>> that detects P2P traffic keeps a list of the local users's IPs. I have the 
>> part of the script that prioritizes Skype ignore the user's traffic if 
>> they're one of the P2P'ers. That means not only does their P2P work poorly 
>> but their Skyping is not going to be as good as it would if they weren't 
>> messing around with P2P. I'm very heavily trying to discourage P2P here.
>> 
>> Greg
>> ---
>> Wireless Users Group   us...@wug.cc
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> --

Re: [WISPA] [WUG] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

[Greg Ihnen]

Yeah, on the high latency, high jitter low bandwidth connection we have here 
the prioritization and bandwidth limiting of the various protocols and kinds of 
traffic makes all the difference between Skype being unusable to being almost 
perfect.

On a side now, I had to downgrade from ROS 5.6 to 4.17 because the log was full 
of error relating to the L7 processing. There's a thread over on the MT forum.

Greg
On Sep 14, 2011, at 3:05 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> >MT's L7 Skype regex 
> 
> The rules inside of this monster?
> 
> http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Basic_traffic_shaping_based_on_layer-7_protocols
> 
> Do you have to prioritize Skype?
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> Guys,
> 
>I've gotten so much out of these forums. I appreciate you letting me 
> be a part of them. I had an idea which I don't know if it would be of 
> interest to anyone here but I hope it is. It has to do with bandwidth 
> management and P2P and Skype and their interaction in MT's RouterOS.
> 
>I've noticed some P2P traffic gets picked up by the L7 regex for 
> Skype. Since anyone doing bandwidth management for both Skype and P2P is 
> probably trying to prioritize Skype and de-prioritize P2P and MT's confusing 
> the two is going to have negative consequences. Having the P2P traffic get 
> into Skype's queue does the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do.
> 
>You'll see when MT's L7 Skype regex is misidentifying P2P traffic as 
> Skype traffic is the inbound and outbound traffic will be greatly unbalanced, 
> much more so than even if one side was doing voice and video and the other 
> side was just doing voice. I was seeing hundreds of Kbps down and one or two 
> Kbps up on the Skype queues. I knew that wasn't right. I looked and sure 
> enough there was bit torrent activity going on. I wonder if some of these bit 
> torrent clients don't try to make their traffic appear to be traffic of legit 
> apps.
> 
>I'm using a modified version of Butch's script. What I'm doing with 
> regard to Skype and P2P to correct this problem is the part of the script 
> that detects P2P traffic keeps a list of the local users's IPs. I have the 
> part of the script that prioritizes Skype ignore the user's traffic if 
> they're one of the P2P'ers. That means not only does their P2P work poorly 
> but their Skyping is not going to be as good as it would if they weren't 
> messing around with P2P. I'm very heavily trying to discourage P2P here.
> 
> Greg
> ---
> Wireless Users Group   us...@wug.cc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] MT, Skype, P2P and Butch's script

[Greg Ihnen]

Guys,

I've gotten so much out of these forums. I appreciate you letting me be 
a part of them. I had an idea which I don't know if it would be of interest to 
anyone here but I hope it is. It has to do with bandwidth management and P2P 
and Skype and their interaction in MT's RouterOS.

I've noticed some P2P traffic gets picked up by the L7 regex for Skype. 
Since anyone doing bandwidth management for both Skype and P2P is probably 
trying to prioritize Skype and de-prioritize P2P and MT's confusing the two is 
going to have negative consequences. Having the P2P traffic get into Skype's 
queue does the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do.

You'll see when MT's L7 Skype regex is misidentifying P2P traffic as 
Skype traffic is the inbound and outbound traffic will be greatly unbalanced, 
much more so than even if one side was doing voice and video and the other side 
was just doing voice. I was seeing hundreds of Kbps down and one or two Kbps up 
on the Skype queues. I knew that wasn't right. I looked and sure enough there 
was bit torrent activity going on. I wonder if some of these bit torrent 
clients don't try to make their traffic appear to be traffic of legit apps.

I'm using a modified version of Butch's script. What I'm doing with 
regard to Skype and P2P to correct this problem is the part of the script that 
detects P2P traffic keeps a list of the local users's IPs. I have the part of 
the script that prioritizes Skype ignore the user's traffic if they're one of 
the P2P'ers. That means not only does their P2P work poorly but their Skyping 
is not going to be as good as it would if they weren't messing around with P2P. 
I'm very heavily trying to discourage P2P here.

Greg



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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 a script to log dns or http/https requests for a given IP?

[Greg Ihnen]

Thanks! That seems to be the consensus.

If I could capture the DNS cache even that would be something. We know more or 
less who the culprit is.

Thanks!
On Sep 7, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Jeremy Parr wrote:

> On 7 September 2011 15:43, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> Anyone have a script to log dns or http/https requests for a given IP? Sort 
> of like a quick and dirty evidence collector?
> 
> Requests to your server? Requests to a server outside your network? What OS 
> and/or routers are in use?
> 
> Basically, you want a port mirror an a Wireshark/tcpdump session.
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Anyone have a script to log dns or http/https requests for a given IP?

[Greg Ihnen]

Anyone have a script to log dns or http/https requests for a given IP? Sort of 
like a quick and dirty evidence collector?

Greg



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] SNMP Client for Mac OS?

[Greg Ihnen]

What are people using as a Mac OS X SNMP client?

Thanks!
Greg



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Lightning protection, Surge Protection, now we need....

[Greg Ihnen]

That will attract moisture and deer

On Aug 23, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Marco Coelho wrote:

> sprinkle some salt inside?
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Patrick Shoemaker 
>  wrote:
> Ew!
> 
> Break off the tabs where the Ethernet cables pass through the base of the 
> protector. Then the lid will seal tightly and keep the slugs out. Also won't 
> crush the cables.
> 
> -- 
> Patrick Shoemaker
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Chuck Hogg
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 22:51
> To: motor...@afmug.com; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Lightning protection, Surge Protection, now we need
> 
> SLUG protection!
> 
> http://imgur.com/V2QCA
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marco C. Coelho
> Argon Technologies Inc.
> POB 875
> Greenville, TX 75403-0875
> 903-455-5036
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Android Survey App

[Greg Ihnen]

It's good to be cautious. Android has had some issues with renegade apps. Their 
app environment is not the walled garden the Apple "App Store" is.

Greg

On Aug 22, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Matt wrote:

>> Which permissions don't you like? We can remove some, but obviously some are
>> required.
> 
> Your messages
> Your personal information
> Phone calls
> 
> Why would it need any of that?  Storage seems a bit questionable as
> well.  Why does it need to read messages?  Why phone book?  Why call
> history?
> 
> 
>>> Found this on Android market:
>>> 
>>> https://market.android.com/details?id=com.wispmon.finder
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?

[Greg Ihnen]

To me that hardly seems like a "study" if all they're doing is making 
predictions with the same tools the WISPs make their predictions with and 
publish them. And for that they want all the intimate details of your business? 
The WISPs have Radio Mobile as well as all the real world experience with 
actual signal strength measurements and knowledge of where there's signal but 
it's not useable due to interference or Fresnel zone issues etc.

Greg

On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:45 PM, Cameron Crum wrote:

> In TX I know they just used radio mobile. 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Brian Webster  
> wrote:
> No they are producing RF engineering maps and studies using RF propagation 
> tools.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> Brian Webster
> 
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> 
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
> 
>  
> 
> From: Greg Ihnen [mailto:os10ru...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 7:18 PM
> To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com
> Cc: 'WISPA General List'
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?
> 
>  
> 
> Brian,
> 
>  
> 
> That's interesting. So they're actually making field measurements?
> 
>  
> 
> I suspect the state's RF staff is probably limited and stretched 
> thin in attempting to cover all the WISPs in the entire state. Their number 
> of measurements would have to be far below that of the WISP operator who has 
> rssi data from every CPE plus all of their pre-sales measurements. Added to 
> that how often could the state's RF staff be resampling? It seems like the 
> state would be much better served to accept the coverage data from the WISP 
> which would have to be more complete and up-to-date.
> 
>  
> 
> If what they really want is coverage then that's the shortest 
> route.
> 
>  
> 
> There's always a temptation in data collection to get everything 
> you can so you won't have to get more later if your focus changes and you 
> want to look at something else. That's what Google's Street View in trouble.
> 
>  
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Brian Webster wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states who have their own RF staff are generating RF plots and creating a 
> polygon shape file of the coverage area the same as the cellular industry 
> have provided.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> 
> Brian Webster
> 
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> 
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
> 
>  
> 
> From: Greg Ihnen [mailto:os10ru...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?
> 
>  
> 
> They're conducting RF propagation studies? Is that not already cut and dried?
> 
>  
> 
> How will their findings be presented? Will they be published?
> 
>  
> 
> Greg
> 
>  
> 
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett,
>   I am the mapping data coordinator for the Illinois portion of the
> National Map. They are asking for so many details in anticipation that they
> need to conduct RF propagation studies. If you don't want to provide so many
> details but still want to participate in the map you can provide them with a
> coverage are map and tell them the maximum upload and download advertised
> speeds for those areas and they should be happy with that. Matt Larsen and I
> went through the process with Nebraska. Took a little convincing to get them
> to accept it but they ultimately did.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3807 - Release Date: 08/03/11
> 
>  
> 
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3807 - Release Date: 08/03/11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You!

Re: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?

[Greg Ihnen]

Brian,

That's interesting. So they're actually making field measurements?

I suspect the state's RF staff is probably limited and stretched thin 
in attempting to cover all the WISPs in the entire state. Their number of 
measurements would have to be far below that of the WISP operator who has rssi 
data from every CPE plus all of their pre-sales measurements. Added to that how 
often could the state's RF staff be resampling? It seems like the state would 
be much better served to accept the coverage data from the WISP which would 
have to be more complete and up-to-date.

If what they really want is coverage then that's the shortest route.

There's always a temptation in data collection to get everything you 
can so you won't have to get more later if your focus changes and you want to 
look at something else. That's what Google's Street View in trouble.

Greg

On Aug 3, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Brian Webster wrote:

> The states who have their own RF staff are generating RF plots and creating a 
> polygon shape file of the coverage area the same as the cellular industry 
> have provided.
>  
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
>  
> From: Greg Ihnen [mailto:os10ru...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 12:21 PM
> To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?
>  
> They're conducting RF propagation studies? Is that not already cut and dried?
>  
> How will their findings be presented? Will they be published?
>  
> Greg
>  
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
> 
> 
> Brett,
>   I am the mapping data coordinator for the Illinois portion of the
> National Map. They are asking for so many details in anticipation that they
> need to conduct RF propagation studies. If you don't want to provide so many
> details but still want to participate in the map you can provide them with a
> coverage are map and tell them the maximum upload and download advertised
> speeds for those areas and they should be happy with that. Matt Larsen and I
> went through the process with Nebraska. Took a little convincing to get them
> to accept it but they ultimately did.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com
> 
>  
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1518/3807 - Release Date: 08/03/11
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?

[Greg Ihnen]

They're conducting RF propagation studies? Is that not already cut and dried?

How will their findings be presented? Will they be published?

Greg

On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Brian Webster wrote:

> Brett,
>   I am the mapping data coordinator for the Illinois portion of the
> National Map. They are asking for so many details in anticipation that they
> need to conduct RF propagation studies. If you don't want to provide so many
> details but still want to participate in the map you can provide them with a
> coverage are map and tell them the maximum upload and download advertised
> speeds for those areas and they should be happy with that. Matt Larsen and I
> went through the process with Nebraska. Took a little convincing to get them
> to accept it but they ultimately did.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
> www.wirelessmapping.com
> www.Broadband-Mapping.com




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Rocket M5 Dish high latency

[Greg Ihnen]

You are correct, I have it off. I just checked.

Greg

On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:

> Better not be.  It makes the link perform like crap.
> 
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> I've got a short backhaul (.1 mile) PtMP and it definitely works better with 
> AirMax on. I forget if I'm using the no-ack feature.
> 
> Greg
> On Jul 25, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr
> >  wrote:
> >> Ok, so WDS fixed the latency.  At 20mhz channel and 100%ccq what should our
> >> actual throughput be. We are only seeing 20mbps max.
> >
> > Airmax should be used on P2P only for high-distance (~50km or more)
> > links. Keep WDS on but turn Airmax off.
> >
> > Throughput depends on distance, but for a 5km link with 20 MHz channel
> > you should get 50 Mbps using large packets.
> >
> >
> > Rubens
> >
> >
> > 
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.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/