Re: [WISPA] About Hulu and Netflix and youtube...increaseddata delivery is here to stay.

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

The XR3 has FCC compliance.

* Michael Baird wrote, On 11/14/2009 12:24 AM:
> Ubiquity does not have any licensed 3.65 gear for the US, they have 
> XR3/Nano3's but they are for overseas customers.
>
> They have announced they will be coming out with 3.65/900 mhz airmax 
> gear 2nd Quarterish next year.
>
> Regards
> Michael Baird
>   
>> UBNT has fully licensed and approved 3.65 gear.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Ralph" 
>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:34 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Cc: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] About Hulu and Netflix and 
>> youtube...increaseddatadeliveryis here to stay.
>>
>>   
>> 
>>> What ubnt 3.65 are you saying you tried? Afaik ubnt has 3 gig but not
>>> on US channels. What country are you in?
>>>
>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 1:15 PM, "MDK"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA FCC FILING re: Section 706

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jack Unger wrote, On 9/12/2009 3:06 PM:
On Friday (9/4) WISPA, with assistance from Rini/Coran, filed Comments 
in the FCC's "Section 706" Notice of Inquiry. This NOI asked if 
Broadband was being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion to all 
Americans.


WISPA's reply answered "No" to this question and went on to address 
issues like:


1. The definition of "broadband".

2. The need for the FCC to act on WISPA's TV White Space Petition for 
Reconsideration.


3. Affordable access to the "middle mile".

4. The adequacy of broadband mapping efforts.

5. Actions to accelerate the deployment of broadband to all Americans.

WISPA's filing is attached and your comments and questions are 
welcomed. All WISPA members who would like to participate in crafting 
future FCC filings are invited to join WISPA's FCC Committee.


Respectfully,

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee
Hey Jack...I skimmed through the document and from what I see you did 
your homework. I'm printing it out for further review and passed it on 
to some other folks as well. Good job.


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.412 / Virus Database: 270.13.94/2366 - Release Date: 09/12/09 
17:50:00



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] 900Mhz question

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Rick...what data rate(s) are you running on the CPE and AP? What speed 
is the cust supposed to get? I would use something like 6/9/12/18 data 
rates at both ends. The slower the data rate the more headroom you will 
have.


Leon

* RickG wrote, On 9/2/2009 8:44 PM:

I've got two customers on a 900MHz AP RB-433/XR9 running Mikrotik
3.10, with a 13db v-pol omni.
Customer 1 has RB-411/XR9 running Mikrotik 3.10, with a 18db grid. 1
mile of solid trees. Signal is -85. Noise floor = -102.
Customer 2 has RB-411/XR9 running Mikrotik 3.10 with a 15db yagi. 1/4
mile solid trees. Signal is -65. Noise floor = -102.
Both customers live with in a mile of each other in the same direction
from the AP.

Customer 1 is complaining about speed. My tests show about 600-1000Kbps.
Customer 2 is working well with 2-3Mbps speeds.

Up until a few weeks ago Customer 1 had near 3Mbps speeds. I lean
towards blaming the foliage but full bloom has long since passed. Any
thoughts?
  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.76/2343 - Release Date: 09/03/09 
05:50:00



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] 5.8ghz PTP

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Josh Luthman wrote, On 9/1/2009 6:31 PM:

30 megs with a 20 mhz channel is what Travis and I always see in 5ghz.
 Xr5 and r52(h) myself.
  
we had almost a 30 mile path using I believe SR5s and I think it was 10 
mHz channels and I think we topped it at 15m but throttled it back to 
cap @ 10m (mostly that link was for residential and a few biz).


leon

On 9/1/09, Scott Carullo  wrote:
  

Mikrotik with R52N cards and say a RB411AH

I see almost that much throughput with the regular rb411 boards but the cpu
i believe is the bottleneck but its close.

Scott Carullo
Brevard Wireless
321-205-1100 x102

 Original Message 


From: "Cameron Kilton" 
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:38 PM
To: "wireless@wispa.org" 
Subject: [WISPA] 5.8ghz PTP

Anybody know of any equipment for under 5K that can deliver 100Mbit
(ish) with Dual Polarity with Adaptive Modulation? (Anything that is not
Ubiquiti for now.)

Also anybody know when the Rocket M will be shipping?

Thank You,
Cameron Kilton
  
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.74/2339 - Release Date: 09/01/09 
06:52:00



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik and 3650

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jason Hensley wrote, On 8/20/2009 3:51 PM:

I know it works, but will the FCC come crashing down on me if they find out
I have these in place?
  
FIrst you need to lite-license yourself and make sure you (your 
locations) are not in an exclusion zone. If so, then take 2. Otherwise, 
proceed and follow the rules.


I also would use the Ligowave stuff as well even though I've used the 
MTK stuff. I'm disappointed in the Ubiquiti stuff (at least 900) and 
wouldn't want the same thing to happen there (3650)


leon



-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik and 3650

I personally am avoiding 3.65 and MT.  Ligowave and an80 are what I am
going to do.

I do know it works, though.  You have to find the cable that matches
5.8 frequency in MT to 3.65 in actual output.  No support by MT (or
even as much as an answer to my questions).

On 8/20/09, Jason Hensley  wrote:
  

I need a backhaul link outside of 2.4 and 5.8.  If I put together a


Mikrotik
  

system, say an RB600 with an Xr3 and put a 20db Grid on each end would


that
  

be legal?  Admittedly I'm not up to speed on what is and is not allowed in
3650 as far as power output, etc etc.  This would be a short backhaul - 2
miles or less.

Along these same lines, can I build a PtMP 3650 system with these same


type
  

specs?

Thanks!



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.62/2315 - Release Date: 08/20/09 
06:05:00



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Direct Lightning Strikes

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Gary Garrett wrote, On 8/7/2009 2:34 PM:
Seems to me it is ethernet cable picking up EMP. I seem to lose a lot of 
Netgear routers lately. Seems to go right through the POE and gets the 
WAN port.  Also Transmit side of XR2's. Always see receive side 
degrading after mid path lightning strikes even a mile away.
Trango ethernet survives. Once we got a direct Tower strike and 
everything on the tower was shot, the only survivor was the top antenna 
a Trango 900 EXT. that was the only one with non-shielded cat 5.

Go figure.
  
One of the things I remember is like some have said not have a ground 
loop. Also, usually one side of the cable should be grounded.


WHen I lived in South Florida and hada  35' tower for my ham and tv 
stuff, I put in a Joslyn (sp) surge suppressor in the electrical panel 
across the AC feed coming in and put in some GFI breakers for that 
stuff. I also had some GFI outlets running the equipment. Luckily never 
had a problem as South Florida has lots of lightning.


Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.406 / Virus Database: 270.13.46/2288 - Release Date: 08/07/09 
13:13:00



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Small auto start generator

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Hi Guys...I'd steer away from inverters since they soak up a lot of 
power. You might want to look at some solar stuff with some of the AGM 
batteries Marlon mentioned in another thread. Run everything @ 24V is 
good that way you don't need any dc-dc converters.


Leon

* os10ru...@gmail.com wrote, On 8/2/2009 3:27 PM:
You might want something like an inverter (Xantrex for example) which  
includes a DC to AC inverter, battery charger, and automatic transfer  
switch. Add the batteries and you're done.


Greg

On Aug 2, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote:

  

Thank you,
That is very good advice. After some research, I'm leaning toward a  
UPS.


A pair of good AGM batteries and charge controller will cost less  
and be far less maintainence. Then I'd just run the CMM off the  
batteries @ 24VDC.


Thanks again
Jerry


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
On Behalf Of Gary Garrett

Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 11:59 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Small auto start generator

Small generators do not auto start very reliably.
When cold or dampness causes hard starting the starter can overheat  
and

burn out. Generally you need an electric choke to start gas engines,
propane can "flood" and need to rest before trying again, diesel can  
be

REAL hard to start when cold. Auto starters can not adapt to changing
conditions.
Our best generator is a Propane Ford inline 6 cyl. 25 KW 3 phase.  
(1955

Model)
The monitor cranks for 1 min then rests and tries 3 times.  
Everything is

adjustable. It knows to stop cranking when it sees AC voltage from the
Gen. so the motor over runs the starter for just a few seconds. Only a
huge starter motor can take this abuse and last unattended.

You may be money ahead to find out why the existing generator is not
starting and get it fixed.

Jerry Richardson wrote:

We rent on a tower that is suspposed to have gen-set backup but it  
does not start reliably.


Any recommendations on a small auto-start generator? We only need  
to power a CMMmicro - ~100watts.


Thanks

__
Jerry Richardson
airCloud Communications
  

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.406 / Virus Database: 270.13.42/2278 - Release Date: 08/02/09 
17:56:00



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] [WISP] 900 PtP

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

check out the ligowave stuffif not then probably an XR9 like 
mentioned below


leon

* Marlon K. Schafer wrote, On 6/3/2009 1:09 AM:
I have a trango link that's only giving me 2 megs.  Sometimes much less. 
The link is 2.3 or so miles.  There are TWO pine trees in the way.


What would you guys use?  I need to get more speed to the remote tower.

thanks,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "RickG" 

To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WISP] 900 PtP


I just did this set up for a customer. Unfortunately they have ltos of
pine trees. The panels didnt cut it and neither did yagis. Big grids
did the trick.
-RickG

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Justin Wilson  wrote:
  

Mikrotik xr9's with arc wireless panels If the link budget supports them.
Throw in 411a boards and you have a sweet setup.

Justin


--
Justin Wilson 


From: Jeremy Grip 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:06 PM
To: w...@part-15.org
Subject: [WISP] 900 PtP

Anyone have any suggestions for a 900 PtP link? 2.5 miles, 25% trees at 
the
far end. Should give me as much BW as possible, support most flavors of 
QOS

for VoIP, and price matters.

TIA,

Jeremy Grip
North Branch Networks, LLC



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.52/2152 - Release Date: 06/03/09 
05:53:00



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Marlon K. Schafer wrote, On 3/18/2009 10:32 PM:
> Thanks Leon,
>   
You;re welcome Marlon...
> Do you have a contact person?
>   
Harold Bledsoe he's a WISPA member vendor.
> Also, what ranges and speeds are people seeing with 3650?
>   
I don;t know as I'm not with Bluemont anymore and we/I were looking at 
all the 3650 stuff last year. Depends on the channel size too.
> Anyone worried about self inflicted interneference?  There is only 50mhz of 
> spectrum right?
>   
I don't think that should be an issue.

Let me know how it goes.

Leon
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Leon Zetekoff" 
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
>
>
>   
>> Hi Marlon...I'd look at the Ligowave stuff similar in principle to the
>> UBNT stuff but I think much better. That's what I'd do today.
>>
>> Take care leon
>>
>> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm looking into this too.
>>>
>>> So far I can't find a solution for rural towers.  A 3 sector install at
>>> $20k?  Not to service the 20 people that will be able to even see that
>>> tower
>>>
>>> Anyone have any better ideas?
>>> marlon
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Gino Villarini" 
>>> To: "Motorola Canopy User Group" ; "WISPA General 
>>> List"
>>> 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 7:55 AM
>>> Subject: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Fellow operators:

 Any updates on your experienes with 3.65 gear? PMP and PTP?

 Any updates on experiences with:

 Redline, Aperto, Tranzeo, Vecima, Alvarion, Ligowave, Solectek, Airspan
 ???


 Gino A. Villarini
 g...@aeronetpr.com
 Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
 tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145

 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Managing Multiple Mikrotiks - User Control

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Scott has a good idea. Combine that with the Dude and it works nice. 
Another thing to do is make the management of the devices on a 
non-routeable.

Leon

* Scott Reed wrote, On 1/31/2009 11:08 AM:
> Radius.
> You can make groups in Radius that map to groups on the routers.  You 
> can then make groups on the router for the specific functions you want 
> the user to have.
> First the MT will check locally for the user.  If that fails, it will 
> check Radius.  Thus, you can have an ID on the MT to ensure some has 
> access, but let Radius to the normal authenication.
>
> Gino Villarini wrote:
>   
>> Hello all
>>  
>> WE have about 100 Mk units in our network, what tool is available to
>> manage them effectively?  We are looking in a way to manage our own
>> internal access to them... Admins and techs getting into groups with
>> individual pwds?
>>  
>> Any ideas to a centrilized security management system for them?
>>  
>> 
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Microtik Remote Weirdness

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Hi Forbes...

YOu can also look at the connectors on the cable you might want to try 
and put new ones on there. Also, did you try a different POE injector at 
the tower?
Let us know what you come up with.

Leon

* Forbes Mercy wrote, On 1/20/2009 7:33 PM:
> Hi Forbes
>
> A few questions/comments:
> :
> How long is the ethernet run?
>
> About 50 feet
>
> We had a MTK client radio on an RB113 go irratic at times.
>
> We brought the 133 back into the office and had no problem accessing it
> with short length Cat 5 and the wireless worked great, same for the new
> 433A board. So this leaves us with the 433AH and one card working at the
> 50 foot length radio mount but not the 133 or 433a which work perfectly
> in the office.
>
> You can't upload into the MTK when using Winbox with the MAC address,
> only IPs.
> How about duplex/speed are they both matched? You might want to crank it
> to 10M/FULL and see if that helps.
>
> We can try this.
>
> Forbes
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:21 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Microtik Remote Weirdness
>
> * Forbes Mercy wrote, On 1/20/2009 7:00 PM:
>   
>> 
>>
>> Took a back-up 433AH board up and used the same radio card, worked
>> 
> like
>   
>> a charm for both our access and customer throughput.  We didn't want
>> 
> to
>   
>> waste a three port/LAN board so ordered a 433a single port board.
>> 
> Once
>   
>> it arrived we logged into it by MAC in the office with no problem,
>> programmed it and sent it up to the tower.  Once on the tower
>> 
> customers
>   
>> associated just fine but once again we couldn't access the management
>> side.  We saw the MAC and the identity for it but we couldn't ping
>> 
> that
>   
>> IP (yes, the 433AH radio was unplugged) and trying to load by MAC
>> 
> would
>   
>> start the RouterOS download but at various places it would crash.
>>
>> Moved the 433A down to the hut and a laptop easily logged into it,
>> 
> even
>   
>> when plugged into the switch, but we still couldn't log into it from
>> remote, although the laptop on scene was going through the same switch
>> and by MAC just like we were trying, sigh.  OK we put the 433AH back
>> 
> in
>   
>> service and again everything worked great.  I'm stumped, we isolated
>> 
> the
>   
>> switch, Cat 5, and IP Address but those two single cards won't allow
>> 
> us
>   
>> to log in over using Winbox either by IP or by MAC while it allows it
>> locally.   *banging head against the wall.  Any ideas?
>> 
> Hi Forbes
>
> A few questions/comments:
> :
> How long is the ethernet run?
> We had a MTK client radio on an RB113 go irratic at times.
> You can't upload into the MTK when using Winbox with the MAC address, 
> only IPs.
> How about duplex/speed are they both matched? You might want to crank it
>
> to 10M/FULL and see if that helps.
>
> Leon
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.10/1905 - Release Date:
> 1/20/2009 2:34 PM
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Microtik Remote Weirdness

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Forbes Mercy wrote, On 1/20/2009 7:00 PM:
> 
>
> Took a back-up 433AH board up and used the same radio card, worked like
> a charm for both our access and customer throughput.  We didn't want to
> waste a three port/LAN board so ordered a 433a single port board.  Once
> it arrived we logged into it by MAC in the office with no problem,
> programmed it and sent it up to the tower.  Once on the tower customers
> associated just fine but once again we couldn't access the management
> side.  We saw the MAC and the identity for it but we couldn't ping that
> IP (yes, the 433AH radio was unplugged) and trying to load by MAC would
> start the RouterOS download but at various places it would crash.
>
> Moved the 433A down to the hut and a laptop easily logged into it, even
> when plugged into the switch, but we still couldn't log into it from
> remote, although the laptop on scene was going through the same switch
> and by MAC just like we were trying, sigh.  OK we put the 433AH back in
> service and again everything worked great.  I'm stumped, we isolated the
> switch, Cat 5, and IP Address but those two single cards won't allow us
> to log in over using Winbox either by IP or by MAC while it allows it
> locally.   *banging head against the wall.  Any ideas?
Hi Forbes

A few questions/comments:
:
How long is the ethernet run?
We had a MTK client radio on an RB113 go irratic at times.
You can't upload into the MTK when using Winbox with the MAC address, 
only IPs.
How about duplex/speed are they both matched? You might want to crank it 
to 10M/FULL and see if that helps.

Leon





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 1/3/2009 7:33 PM:
> The tower is a 4-leg self supporting tower, it was built a long time ago, 
> built from what I've heard in the mid 1900's...  The antennas for the tower 
> are isolated from the tower, it appears that there are 3 vertical antennas, 
> attached with copper tubing from the transmitter to each of the antennas 
> (which are on isolated standoffs, top to bottom.  There is some kind of 
> matching transformer in the building under the tower.  The tower is 10kW, 
> 1450 AM (good guess on the frequency!)..
>   
I think 1450 is a CLASS IV (or what was a CLASS IV) freq and should be 
1kW. What's the callsign and location?

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jack Unger wrote, On 1/3/2009 8:15 PM:
> ... the TRANSMITTER is 10 kW, not the tower...
>
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> The tower is a 4-leg self supporting tower, it was built a long time ago, 
>> built from what I've heard in the mid 1900's...  The antennas for the tower 
>> are isolated from the tower, it appears that there are 3 vertical antennas, 
>> attached with copper tubing from the transmitter to each of the antennas 
>> (which are on isolated standoffs, top to bottom.  There is some kind of 
>> matching transformer in the building under the tower.  The tower is 10kW, 
>> 1450 AM (good guess on the frequency!)..
>> 


What is the callsign of the station we can then find out the true power 
from the FCC DB.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] POE up AM radio tower

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

One thing you might try is making an RF choke at the tower base coiling 
up the CAT5 and possibly even using a ferrite on it as well.

Leon

* Jack Unger wrote, On 1/3/2009 3:35 PM:
> Doug,
>
> The only way to tell if using shielded cable would work is to try it. 
> Every high-power (radio tower) situation is unique. Most tower problems 
> occur on high-power FM towers where the FM frequency is close to the 
> Ethernet frequency but problems can easily exist on AM towers too 
> depending on AM transmit power levels, proximity to your cabling, 
> effectiveness of your shielding and grounding, filters internal to and 
> external from your equipment, etc. This topic (with examples) can be 
> discussed endlessly but each and every tower is going to be unique so if 
> you want a quick and correct answer then I'd suggest just going ahead 
> and trying it. Do your best on the initial shielding and grounding to 
> get the best result then see if that is good enough to meet your needs.
>
> jack
>
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>   
>> We've had for many years access to a non-live AM radio tower (by non-live, 
>> the antennas are mounted on the sides of the tower, insulated, look like 
>> long steel cables).  For a long time we ran AC to the top, into a small 
>> choke/transformer (some little gizmo) that filtered the AM radio signal, 
>> along with a fiber cable to the bottom.  A lightning strike zapped all the 
>> equipment a few years ago, and we never replaced it.  The time has come that 
>> we need to put equipment on it again.
>>
>> I'd like to move towards running POE to the bottom, and at the top would be 
>> Nanostations 2/5's.  The tower is 160 ft tall self-supporting.  I was 
>> thinking about running shielded twisted pair cable.  In the past we've been 
>> able to run short lengths of CAT5 at the top from the main power box, but 
>> the last time any experimentation was done with CAT5 was with a former 
>> partner, and the now deceased engineer that used to run the radio station.  
>>
>> Would the shielded cable remove the interference/static charge/etc or is 
>> this just not possible?
>> 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Domain name registrars

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Patrick Shoemaker wrote, On 12/30/2008 3:40 PM:
> What companies are the operators here using for domain registration? I 
> am looking to transfer my customers' domains to a new registrar. I am 
> looking for a credible US-based company that does not have a huge setup 
> fee and that does not employ any shady practices such as holding domain 
> names for ransom when they expire.
>
>   
I've used Network Solutions for years and also using the folks that have 
done hosting for us, Dreamhost.com Their support is pretty good too.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Fw: [TowerTalk] Some spectacular views of theabandonedRussian Woodpecker antenna array

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

I was in South Florida during those years and remember that irritant!

I've got some dipoles in the attic setup and need to find some time to 
get back on.

Leon

* Jack Unger wrote, On 12/20/2008 1:39 AM:
> Yep. I remember the Woodpecker too. It really made a mess of the 40 
> meter ham band.
>
> _ _ . . .   . . . _ _ .  ..._ _ .  _ .
>
> Chuck McCown wrote:
>> I remember the woodpecker.  Have not been on HF in years.  Need to get a QRP 
>> rig and do some CW.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "jp" 
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 8:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [TowerTalk] Some spectacular views of 
>> theabandonedRussian Woodpecker antenna array
>>
>>
>>   
>>> Looks like a bigger version of the 8-bay UHF television antenna I just
>>> ordered for OTA HD service.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 06:33:25AM -0800, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>>> 
 H, wonder how far we could shoot a wifi signal with one of these? 
 grin
 marlon

   
>> This gigantic antenna system called Duga-3 is located near Prypiat
>> in the Chernobyl area.  It was built in the 70's as an early missile
>>  detection system (over-the-horizon radar system). It was also
>> called  the Steel Yard hence its distinctive appearance. The antenna
>> was  deactivated in 1989.
>>
>> The Russian Woodpecker was a notorious Soviet signal that could be
>> heard on the shortwave radio bands worldwide between July 1976 and
>> December 1989. It sounded like a sharp, repetitive tapping noise, at
>>  10 Hz, giving rise to the "Woodpecker" name. The random frequency
>> disrupted legitimate broadcast, amateur radio, and utility
>> transmissions and resulted in thousands of complaints by many
>> countries worldwide.
>>
>> Starting in 1976 a new and powerful radio signal was detected
>> worldwide, and quickly dubbed the Woodpecker by amateur radio
>> operators. Transmission power on some woodpecker transmitters was
>> estimated to be as high as 10 MW EIRP. As well as disrupting
>> shortwave amateur radio and broadcasting it could sometimes be heard
>>  over telephone circuits due to the strength of the signals. This
>> led  to a thriving industry of "Woodpecker filters" and noise
>> blankers.
>>
>> http://www.artificialowl.net/2008/12/abandoned-giant-duga-3-system-antenna.html
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>>
>> This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
>>
>> http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/
>>
>>
>> http://gigliwood.com/abcd/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _
>> You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/
>> ___
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> towert...@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
>>   
> ___
>
>
>
> ___
> TowerTalk mailing list
> towert...@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> 
 
 WISPA Wants You! Join today!
 http://signup.wispa.org/
 

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

 Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
   
>>> -- 
>>> /*
>>> Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
>>>KB1IOJ|   Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
>>> http://f64.nu/   |   for Midcoast Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/
>>> */
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/piperm

Re: [WISPA] FCC ULC

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jerry Richardson wrote, On 8/12/2008 11:55 AM:
> How accurate is the FCC ULC?
>  
> I am searching by call sign for grandfathered earth stations and all
> four of the call signs come back not found.
>   
It's not in there except a reference to the grandfathered PDF. The 
International Bureau is where the FSSes are dealt with.

Leon
>  
>  
> Jerry Richardson
> VP Operations
> 925-260-4119
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email
>  
>
>   
> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Transportable/Mobile 3650mhz band Base Stations

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Mobile type ops in 3650 probably is not going to happen IMHO - a big can 
of worms the FCC opened up. But in an emergency, then there's always the 
capability of getting an STA.

Leon

* Stuart Browne wrote, On 8/10/2008 1:28 PM:
> The "transportable 3650 base station" idea is akin to a transportable
> satellite terminal. FCC requires that the satcom terminal be licensed
> but permits uplinking from ad hoc sites "without registration".
> Imagine needing to relocate a base station after a tornedo wipes out
> the base station and tower...
>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> It focuses on the base station because that is where authorization for the 
>> client to transmit happens.
>>
>> Its up to the base station to track where the client station is dynamically.
>>
>> I mean mobility is why we are in the wireless business isn't it? If client 
>> stations couldn't move around then it would be kind of pointless.
>>
>> Charles
>> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:45:20
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transportable/Mobile 3650mhz band Base Stations
>>
>>
>> I see no reason why they would not.   The question is not if you can move
>> the building or structure or whatever it is mounted to, but whether or not
>> you properly update your location registration(s).One thing I find odd,
>> is that the process ignores the "client" and focuses on the base station.
>>
>> Having been through that process - I'm still in it, the first app was
>> rejected and had to be amended, it's a bit of a pain, and the FCC is NOT
>> fast in responding.   Well, fast to me is overnight, fast to them is a week
>> or so.   It actually looks like I'll have the first licensed and registered
>> site in OR and WA state.
>>
>> They're very adamant about warning you not to put equipment online until the
>> site registration is done.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Stuart Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 5:04 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Transportable/Mobile 3650mhz band Base Stations
>>
>>
>> 
>>> I'm interested in if the FCC permits the use of transportable 3650 mhz
>>> band base stations.
>>>
>>> Stu Browne
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.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/
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] new site install pictures

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

THought was a surge suppressor. Nice install.

Are you using silicone to seal besides the tape? We used silicone in our 
amateur stuff iat our  FLorida repeater location and also at my house 
when I lived down there. Works good.

Leon

PS: The battery is there are a failover, I'm assuming you have AC power 
there?

* Kurt Fankhauser wrote, On 8/10/2008 1:23 PM:
> That's not a barrel connector it is a PolyPhaser surge surpressor. I've
> never had an issue with water getting in a connector in 4 years of sealing
> this way. We must have pretty mild weather or something. I do try to get the
> tape all the way up to the antenna though but sometimes its tight and the
> roll of tape won't make it but it turns out alright every time.
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>  
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 12:30 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] new site install pictures
>
> Hi,
>
> Looks very nice... I did notice a couple things that we have seen in our 
> environment that may or may not be an issue. The first is the 
> weatherproof on the LMR jumper cables. We have found that we have to 
> seal all the way up against the plastic case on the antenna, otherwise 
> water will eventually penetrate into the seal. The other thing is using 
> an RJ45 barrel connector inside your outdoor box. We've had many of them 
> fail after a year or two (in our environment, it's probably due to the 
> large temperature swings in summer vs. winter. We see -30F in the winter 
> and up to 105F in the summer).
>
> Just some thoughts... take it for what it's worth... ;)
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Kurt Fankhauser wrote:
>   
>> Hey guys I just got some pictures uploaded of one of my AP sites if you
>> 
> want
>   
>> to check it out. Hopefully someone starting out can benefit from it as
>> 
> this
>   
>> is 4 years of knowledge from being on the lists here and picking up on
>> better ways of how to do installs. Got any questions just ask. I'd
>> appreciate some comments as well. :)
>>
>>  
>>
>> http://www.wavelinc.com/towers/DSGE_Tower/
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
> 
> 
>   
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
> 
> 
>   
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Court Injunction

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Jerry Richardson wrote, On 8/4/2008 3:44 PM:
> Is it possible to get an injunction against a HAM if he moved to a
> 900MHz frequency as is causing interference that would disrupt our
> ability to do business? I know he has a license and I don't however
> there must be some precedent that allows for commercial venture versus
> amateur radio.
>  
> Any ideas?
>   
Jerry...sorry Part 97 licensees override anything on part 15. Part 15 
devices must accept interference. Have you tried talking with him?

Leon WA4ZLW
>  
>  
> Jerry Richardson
> VP Operations
> 925-260-4119
> P Please consider the environment before printing this email
>  
>
>   
> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] The PDF I mentioned

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Charles Wyble wrote, On 8/3/2008 11:54 AM:
> I was searching for information on  grandfathered earth stations and
> came across
>
> www.comsearch.com/files/PA-102473-EN_Extended_C-Band_Protection_3650-3700.pdf 
>
> Our friends at comsearch. :)
>   
Comsearch is in the business of protection in addition to other things. 
But the protection folks don't seem to want to send business to the 
other side of Comsearch. Long story still unraveling.

ldz



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Charles Wyble wrote, On 8/1/2008 11:08 AM:
> Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
>> Charles...As I found out, Appendix D is just ONE way to do those 
>> calculations.   
> Can you expand on this a bit?
>
> Is there another way they should be done? Or are there different 
> conclusions one can reach by doing them differently (ie you follow the 
> method in appendix d and the earth station uses some other method to 
> invalidate your data)?
>
> Is this something to be concerned about?
Hi Charles...from my talks with the WTB folks they indicated that 
Appendix D was just one way to get there from here so to speak. I do not 
know if COmsearch et al are using this procedure or something else.

Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Charles...As I found out, Appendix D is just ONE way to do those 
calculations.

Leon

* Charles Wyble wrote, On 7/31/2008 3:22 PM:
> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>   
>> I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them.  What I can't seem 
>> to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite stations. 
>> It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address and a 
>> person's name.
>>
>> I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint Communications Orlando, 
>> FL  county) using Frequencies 3500 to 5000mhz (All Service Types), and found 
>> nothing but a cancelled point to point license for AT&T.
>>   
>> 
> Check out http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/General_Menu_Reports/filenum.cfm to 
> search by file number.
>
> I'm reading over the applications now. Lots of good info which you will 
> need for base station
> placement calculations (try saying that 3 times fast)  located appendix 
> D of the frequency rules document.
> I don't know the formal name of that document.
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

I used to live in Boca Raton and my ham repeater is still on the air 
down there. We're also doing some 3650 in Florida as well. Currently 
we're 4 miles just west of the 150km zone so we're in the clear.

I've had numerous calls with higherups at the WTB on this over the last 
few months.

Leon

* Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 7/27/2008 6:52 PM:
> I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them.  What I can't seem 
> to find is the ULS registrations for the actual earth satellite stations. 
> It seems like most other ULS entires, they have a contact address and a 
> person's name.
>
> I did a Geosearch of Orange County, FL (the Sprint Communications Orlando, 
> FL  county) using Frequencies 3500 to 5000mhz (All Service Types), and found 
> nothing but a cancelled point to point license for AT&T.
>
> A quick search of the FCC site for Sprint's filing # (SESRWL2000101902129) 
> finds nothing but the mention in the FCC 3650 FSS list.  If I were to call 
> the FCC with that number would they be able to provide me contact 
> information for that company that pertains to the FSS department?
>
> I wonder if creating a website that documented all the FSS contact info, 
> combined with map distance, automatic EIRP / bearing calculations (i.e. the 
> stuff the FCC talks about in their 3650 document), would be beneficial to 
> the other WISPs who want to serve the 125 million people who live INSIDE of 
> these zones.
>
> It seems silly, like a 5-10W transmitter pointing the opposite direction 
> would even make a difference - you would think the FCC would have integrated 
> distance AND antenna direction when it comes to base station registration...
>
> Florida is flat.  At 105km, I would need to have at least a 450 foot tower 
> or higher on both ends to even send a signal that far.  45 miles ended up 
> needing over 400ft on both ends.  It's not like I want to broadcast 3650 
> from the top of a 10,000 foot mountain peak.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
>
>
>   
>> Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
>> 
>>> Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones?
>>> Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km
>>> next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that
>>> direction - mainly north and northwest.  But according to the FCC, I'd be
>>> dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even 
>>> have
>>> phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like
>>> they would even know what I was talking about.
>>>
>>>   
>> I have done several blog posts on this subject:
>>
>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/satellite-related-brain-dump.html
>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/80211y-3650-mhz-in-southern-california.html
>>
>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu.html
>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com/2008/07/3650mhz-southern-california-malibu_05.html
>>
>> Hope that helps.
>> 
>>> And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone 
>>> with
>>> the power to make a real decision.
>>>
>>>   
>> Indeed.
>> 
>>> Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their 
>>> FCC
>>> attorney of record?  Is the consent more like a contract?  Would they be
>>> able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)?  Is this like 
>>> asking
>>> for keys to the space shuttle?
>>>
>>>   
>> Excellent questions. Hopefully someone here can help.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
>> http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
>> CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project
>>
>>
>>
>> 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

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

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Hi Doug...I've been doing this since January and it's been very slow. 
Comsearch seems to rep many of the FSSes. As soon as I have more info on 
where we are I'll post it or you can contact me off list.

Thanks leon

* Doug Ratcliffe wrote, On 7/27/2008 6:16 PM:
> Has anyone gotten any headway on company negotiations in protected zones? 
> Almost all of the zones near me (105km is the closest to the SW, 146.7km 
> next closest to the South) and I have no desire to point coverage in that 
> direction - mainly north and northwest.  But according to the FCC, I'd be 
> dealing with Sprint, and Harris Corporation - these people don't even have 
> phone numbers on their web sites for any departments that would look like 
> they would even know what I was talking about.
>
> And even if I found a human being, it seems unlikely I'd talk to anyone with 
> the power to make a real decision.
>
> Is this something best sent from a telecommunications attorney to their FCC 
> attorney of record?  Is the consent more like a contract?  Would they be 
> able to charge me for consent (like a spectrum lease)?  Is this like asking 
> for keys to the space shuttle?
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Mike Hammett wrote, On 7/20/2008 12:09 PM:
> So could the link work because both ends are 200'+ over the bulk of the 
> middle?
>   
I don't think it will work. We tried last year to get through some thick 
trees and couldn't do it even with a relay at the edge of the tree line.

We do have 900 deployed with trees.

Leon
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "D. Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration
>
>
>   
>> Yes.
>>
>> ryan
>>
>>
>> On Jul 19, 2008, at 8:39 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> Is that elevation at the bottom?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "D. Ryan Spott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:01 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 900 MHz Foliage Penetration
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Mike,

 Take a look at tranzeofaq.com. I have a pretty good example of a 2.75
 mile shot through trees with 6mbps throughput.

 ryan


 On Jul 19, 2008, at 1:32 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

 
> How much foliage penetration should I expect from a 900 MHz system?
>
> I'm looking at an area which has 30' - 50' thick tree lines every
> 1/2 to 1.5 miles.  I'm looking at 13 dBi sector with an approx 24 dB
> radio (figure a dB or two for cable loss).  For CPE I'm looking at
> 13 - 15 dB CPE antenna (the 18 dB was just too big and expensive)
> with 20 - 24 dB radios.
>
> Looking at the XR9 radios.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   

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

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

 
>>>
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>   
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] 900 MHz Integrated Antenna Enclosure

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Mike Hammett wrote, On 7/19/2008 12:40 PM:
> I've seen one by PacWireless and one by MTI.  Does anyone know of one with 
> greater gain than 12.5 dBi?
>   
Hi Mike...ArC Wireless has some...we use them and are good Titan 
Wireless carriers them.

take care leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Harold Bledsoe wrote, On 7/2/2008 3:19 PM:
> I respectfully disagree.  In my opinion, any frequency that is tied to a 
> particular standard by regulation will do nothing but stifle innovation
> in that band.
>   
I agree with Hal. As an amateur radio operator as well as someone in 
this and the broadcast business I have seen too many times where the FCC 
tried to over-regulate and stifled innovation.

3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes.  I think, 
though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to 
restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming 
anytime soon.

Leon
> -Hal
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Scrivner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> To: WISPA General List 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 16:14:48 -0500
>
> I would like to see WiMax approved for the entire 50 MHz and do away
> with the contention mechanism requirement for the upper 25 MHz as
> required under the rules. I know this is a flip-flop of position from
> our earlier position but frankly I see this as a god opportunity for
> WISPs to move up to the next level of reliability and scale. Many
> people are building in WiMax with success in the 3.5 to 3.8 GHz bands
> across the world. If WiMax were the standard for the 3650 band across
> 50 MHz then carriers could easily work together to band plan and move
> away from interference. With GPS sync the bands can be reused multiple
> times anyway. Sticking with one standard in this band just makes sense
> for us. It can be a "WISP band" if we do this. Spanking more out of
> 802.11 is old news and needs to be put to bed. It is time to use a
> real platform for scalable and reliable outdoor wireless broadband.
> WiMax is the path to this in 3.65 GHz. 802.22 will be the standard in
> the TV whitespaces (hopefully). It is time for us to standardize and
> use something better than repurposed WiFi.
> Scriv
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:15 AM,  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> The energy level for backoff CAN be adjusted.
>>
>> The FCC says that NEITHER is acceptable, and even though the atheros
>> mechanism is just an "energy detection",  it will not be allowed.   This is
>> what I gathered from an assortment of emails on the topic, some of which
>> were from the FCC to someone wanting certification.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Harold Bledsoe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 4:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
>>
>>
>> 
>>> The RF energy detection mechanism of 802.11a is sort of based on power
>>> level.  If the preamble is detected and decoded, then the mechanism is
>>> activated at -82dBm.  Otherwise it requires a relatively high energy
>>> level (-62dBm).
>>>
>>> Although I agree that even -62dBm seems "fair".  It would be very useful
>>> to know what part of the CCA mechanism of 802.11a does not work for the
>>> FCC's contention requirement.  If it is not the detection mechanism,
>>> then perhaps it is the backoff mechanism?
>>>
>>> -Hal
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>>> To: WISPA General List 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
>>> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:23:31 -0700
>>>
>>> That's nice, but in real life the FCC has simply gotten on a tear and
>>> decided that NOTHING qualifies for what they want.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what the purpose of this rather odd bit of nonsense is
>>> about,
>>> but when it declares that 802.11 "does not detect dissimilar systems",
>>> then
>>> nothing can EVER be made to work.  After all, the whole "listen before
>>> talk"
>>> is AN RF ENERGY DETECTOR.If that doesn't work, nothing can.  Or, only
>>> that device or mechanism the person passing judgement wants to promote
>>> will
>>> "work".
>>>
>>> We would spectulate who has bought this favor from the FCC, but in
>>> reality,
>>> it doesn't matter.  I predict NO equipment will be certified for the rest
>>> of
>>> the spectrum and it will be auctioned for big bucks to some large entity.
>>> We'll still be in the same boat 2 years from now, with statements about
>>> "we're watching the development of  with
>>> interest".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:28 PM
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Update from the FCC on 3.65Ghz and CBP
>>>
>>>
>>>   
 Update from the FCC. This makes is very clear to me what the FCC is
 looking
 for, if there are any questions or comments feel free.

 Sincerely, Tony Morella
 Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
 Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
 http://www.demarctech.com


 "To

Re: [WISPA] RouterBoard 112

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Blair Davis wrote, On 7/1/2008 2:33 PM:
> Anyone happen to know the Power Supply voltage for the old RouterBoard 
> 112?  Just got some of them and I can't find it on the RouterBoard 
> ste   Thanks.
>
>   
up to 48volts

leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] XR9 separation from other 2.4 stuff

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Kurt Fankhauser wrote, On 6/13/2008 5:27 PM:
> Leon,
>   
Hi Kurt...
> How close are the 2.4 cards to that one SR9 card? What SBC are you using?
>   
We're using I think a RB333 currently on that tower. We have three cards 
plugged into the board.

Thanks leon
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>  
>  
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:15 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] XR9 separation from other 2.4 stuff
>
> * Kurt Fankhauser wrote, On 6/13/2008 3:56 PM:
>   
>> It is my understanding that the 900mhz cards are actually 2.4ghz with
>> converters built in. So obviously putting a 900mhz card on the same board
>> 
> as
>   
>> a 2.4ghz card would be a bad idea. Now can I put them on the same tower?
>> Lets say I put the 900mhz radio at the bottom and run some coax since
>> 
> 900mhz
>   
>> should have much less cable loss I should be able to do this. I'll leave
>> 
> the
>   
>> 2.4 stuff up top. But will the 900mhz antenna mounted in close proximity
>> 
> to
>   
>> the 2.4 antenna pick up the 2.4 and allow it to still cause interference
>> 
> to
>   
>> the radio below? Also would putting a 900mhz filter before the radio solve
>> this?
>>   
>> 
> Hi Kurt...we're currently doing this. We have two 2.4 cards and an SR9 
> in one box at the top of a tower. On the same tower, lower down, we have 
> a box with two SR9s in it. I thought at first we might have some 
> problems but I think if you are shielded and the connections are good 
> and tight you shouldn't have much of a problem. If you want to isolate 
> physically then that shouldn't be an issue IMHO.
>
> LEoN
>   
>>  
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
> 
> 
>   
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> 
> 
> 
>   
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>   
>> 
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] XR9 separation from other 2.4 stuff

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Kurt Fankhauser wrote, On 6/13/2008 3:56 PM:
> It is my understanding that the 900mhz cards are actually 2.4ghz with
> converters built in. So obviously putting a 900mhz card on the same board as
> a 2.4ghz card would be a bad idea. Now can I put them on the same tower?
> Lets say I put the 900mhz radio at the bottom and run some coax since 900mhz
> should have much less cable loss I should be able to do this. I'll leave the
> 2.4 stuff up top. But will the 900mhz antenna mounted in close proximity to
> the 2.4 antenna pick up the 2.4 and allow it to still cause interference to
> the radio below? Also would putting a 900mhz filter before the radio solve
> this?
>   
Hi Kurt...we're currently doing this. We have two 2.4 cards and an SR9 
in one box at the top of a tower. On the same tower, lower down, we have 
a box with two SR9s in it. I thought at first we might have some 
problems but I think if you are shielded and the connections are good 
and tight you shouldn't have much of a problem. If you want to isolate 
physically then that shouldn't be an issue IMHO.

LEoN
>  
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik User Manager- Help needed

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Ralph -- please contact me off list.

Thanks leon

* ralph wrote, On 6/8/2008 2:43 PM:
> I'm very frustrated with this application. Having trouble getting SSL
> activated on the authentication server.
> I have posted numerous times on MT's forum and received not even one answer.
> I have not received any support from my support ticket either.
>
> Who is the best MT consultant to use to help me figure out what is wrong?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ralph
> Brightlan.net
> Atlanta
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.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] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Mike Hammett wrote, On 6/4/2008 6:12 PM:
> It doesn't have to have a contention based protocol for use in the 
> lower half of the spectrum.  What do you think WiMax is?
A contention based protocol MUST be used in the lower 25 which is the 
only spectrum currently avail for use.
WiMax is a layer up from the physical layer.

ldz
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>
>> George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has to
>> be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based protocol.
>>
>> Leon
>>
>> * George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM:
>>> Thanks for explaining that Travis.
>>> I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently.
>>> There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I forwarded
>>> it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the way the 
>>> post read.
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from 
>>> the FCC.
>>>
>>> As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for most
>>> of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and go. It
>>> sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected.
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Here is what I have heard or read so far:
>>>>
>>>> (1) I "heard" that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to 
>>>> "work it
>>>> out" and that "more than likely" the FCC would not get involved in a
>>>> frequency conflict.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Getting a license for 3650 takes about 2 hours, start to finish
>>>> (from what I have heard from people that have done it). Meaning any
>>>> person with Internet access can have a valid, FCC license in 2 hours.
>>>>
>>>> (3) The FCC has already approved someone using just the Ubiquiti XR3
>>>> card as the registered "base station". Putting that card in a MT 
>>>> system
>>>> does not broadcast any call signs or info in the packet frame, yet you
>>>> are "licensed" and "FCC legal" as per the registration.
>>>>
>>>> (4) If it truly is a "first registered, everyone else work around me"
>>>> then I will be registering every single tower within a 1,000 mile 
>>>> radius
>>>> from my NOC. :)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying bash you or anything you said... I'm just thinking the
>>>> 3650 band is going to get just as messy as the 5ghz band within a few
>>>> years... and I think the FCC has given "false hope" that it is 
>>>> somewhat
>>>> protected... yet I don't see how.
>>>>
>>>> Travis
>>>> Microserv
>>>>
>>>> John Scrivner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is how it is different than 5 GHz. In 5 GHz the rules are 
>>>>> that you have
>>>>> to accept interference. Also any equipment on earth can use the 
>>>>> band from
>>>>> mobile phones to cameras and of course broadband devices of many 
>>>>> types.
>>>>> There is little involved in dropping your link. Also there is 
>>>>> little chance
>>>>> of you knowing what the interfering source is without some leg 
>>>>> work. In 3650
>>>>> only people who get a license can launch. Base stations must be 
>>>>> certified
>>>>> systems with the FCC and must be registered with the FCC. The 
>>>>> rules state
>>>>> that it is a requirement that anyone using the band must work to 
>>>>> eliminate
>>>>> interference with other users. That means if you are there first 
>>>>> and someone
>>>>> interferes with you then they broke the law and it is their duty 
>>>>> to fix it.
>>>>> Also, since everyone must register base stations, you will know 
>>>>> who is
>>>>> interfering. In the case of WiMAX base stations, the call letters 
>>>>> of the
>>>>> lice

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Tom DeReggi wrote, On 6/4/2008 2:40 PM:
> Regardless, Are 3650 registrations being allowed for "modular 
> components"?
>
> They might be using the experiemental license?
As far as I know from my contacts you need a full system certified. You 
just can't register a single unit of a certified system. It's possible 
the ULS has a bug whereby it has allowed this.

Also, forget about getting any experimental licenses anytime soon as 
they told me directly unless it's related to Homeland security they're 
bogged down with those (OET that is).

Leon
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:01 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>
>> * ralph wrote, On 6/4/2008 9:40 AM:
>>> Who?
>>>
>> yeah who? My contacts at Ubiquiti as of about a week or two ago said
>> there are no FCC Approved solutions. Ubiquity's device is FCC approved
>> but just as a modular component.
>>
>> Leon
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:34 AM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Another WISP has already gotten an FCC license using the Ubiquiti 
>>> XR3 card
>>> as the registered device... in fact, the FCC actually called this 
>>> person to
>>> clarify the specified frequency ranges.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
>>>
>>> * Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big"
>>> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those
>>> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for 
>>> less
>>> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other 
>>> frequencies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with
>>> Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until
>>> someone goes through the process it's not doable.
>>>
>>> Leon
>>>
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something 
>>> cheaper comes
>>> along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 mPCI card when I
>>> normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so I have to go with 
>>> a more
>>> expensive solution... I think I figured $500 for a CPE instead of 
>>> the $150 I
>>> pay now.  I don't expect to pay $150 for a WiMAX CPE or $750 for a 
>>> WiMAX AP,
>>> but the prices these guys are asking is ridiculous.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>   - Original Message -   From: Travis Johnson
>>>   To: WISPA General List
>>>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>
>>>
>>>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for $7,000
>>> basestations? :)
>>>
>>>   Travis
>>>   Microserv
>>>
>>>   Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a 
>>> time or
>>> two.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini"  
>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List"  <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> 
>>> 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>
>>>
>>>   I thought you were One ring ...
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aeronet Wirel

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Tom DeReggi wrote, On 6/4/2008 2:38 PM:
> Just be clear, there is a big difference between doing 3650, and doing 3650 
> with WiMax.
>   
Tom I beg to differ. 3650 rules were written without any WiMax 
reference. The key is contention protocol must be used in the restricted 
25 mHz and the unrestricted 25 mHz is currently not available.

Leon
> I'd argue, it could be more advantageous to an operator with non-Wimax, just 
> because the 50mhz of available spectrum they would have available to them, if 
> they used the contention based rules.
> Although they'd have to do without all the cool useful features for carrier 
> level deployments.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Travis Johnson 
>   To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List 
>   Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:34 AM
>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>
>   Another WISP has already gotten an FCC license using the Ubiquiti XR3 card 
> as the registered device... in fact, the FCC actually called this person to 
> clarify the specified frequency ranges.
>
>   Travis
>   Microserv
>
>   Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: 
> * Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
>   Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big" 
> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those 
> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for less 
> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other frequencies.
>   
> You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with 
> Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until 
> someone goes through the process it's not doable.
>
> Leon
>   Travis
> Microserv
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>   
> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something cheaper 
> comes along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 mPCI card when I 
> normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so I have to go with a more 
> expensive solution... I think I figured $500 for a CPE instead of the $150 I 
> pay now.  I don't expect to pay $150 for a WiMAX CPE or $750 for a WiMAX AP, 
> but the prices these guys are asking is ridiculous.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Travis Johnson 
>   To: WISPA General List 
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>
>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for $7,000 
> basestations? :)
>
>   Travis
>   Microserv
>
>   Mike Hammett wrote: 
> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a time or 
> two.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>
>   I thought you were One ring ...
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mike Prachar
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:37 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
> Importance: High
>
> -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to AT&T
> -
>
>
> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>
> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting edge
> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
> through our Channel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>
> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
> enjoy guaranteed high speed connectivity, voice and internet bundled
> service, at the best cost/efficiency ratio in the industry.
>
> Matt Liotta, Chief Technology Officer of Rapid Link states, "We are
> clearly ahead of the competition and the technology power cur

Re: [WISPA] 3650 XR3 locations

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Randy Cosby wrote, On 6/4/2008 12:36 PM:
> Thanks for the clarification on the cards.  Any hints on getting someone 
> at UBNT to talk to you?  My emails, private forum messages, etc. have 
> been ignored.  I understand they are completely buried with NS2 / NS5 
> demand, but come on... :)
>   
As far as I know, 3650 requires a contention based protocol not just a 
modular part's FCCID to use it.

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

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

HI George...can't be done with 3650 at least not now. There's not going 
to be any change in the Feds IMHO. It's lucky we got what we have now 
and it's hard enough to try and deploy as well due to the grandfathered 
FSS'.

Leon

* George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 12:03 PM:
> WISPA had a tele conference with the FCC about plug n playin certified 
> components last year.
> It was a consideration of ours to try to see what needs to be done so 
> that we can legally build on the fly systems that were made up of 
> certified components.
>
> We need to go back to the FCC and get that going again. There was 
> ideas hashed around between them and us.
>
> Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
>> George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has 
>> to be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based 
>> protocol.
>>
>> Leon
>>
>> * George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM:
>>> Thanks for explaining that Travis.
>>> I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently.
>>> There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I 
>>> forwarded it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the 
>>> way the post read.
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from 
>>> the FCC.
>>>
>>> As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for 
>>> most of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and 
>>> go. It sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected.
>>>
>>> George
>>>
>>> Travis Johnson wrote:
>>>  
>>>> John,
>>>>
>>>> Here is what I have heard or read so far:
>>>>
>>>> (1) I "heard" that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to 
>>>> "work it out" and that "more than likely" the FCC would not get 
>>>> involved in a frequency conflict.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Getting a license for 3650 takes about 2 hours, start to finish 
>>>> (from what I have heard from people that have done it). Meaning any 
>>>> person with Internet access can have a valid, FCC license in 2 hours.
>>>>
>>>> (3) The FCC has already approved someone using just the Ubiquiti 
>>>> XR3 card as the registered "base station". Putting that card in a 
>>>> MT system does not broadcast any call signs or info in the packet 
>>>> frame, yet you are "licensed" and "FCC legal" as per the registration.
>>>>
>>>> (4) If it truly is a "first registered, everyone else work around 
>>>> me" then I will be registering every single tower within a 1,000 
>>>> mile radius from my NOC. :)
>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying bash you or anything you said... I'm just thinking 
>>>> the 3650 band is going to get just as messy as the 5ghz band within 
>>>> a few years... and I think the FCC has given "false hope" that it 
>>>> is somewhat protected... yet I don't see how.
>>>>
>>>> Travis
>>>> Microserv
>>>>
>>>> John Scrivner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is how it is different than 5 GHz. In 5 GHz the rules are 
>>>>> that you have
>>>>> to accept interference. Also any equipment on earth can use the 
>>>>> band from
>>>>> mobile phones to cameras and of course broadband devices of many 
>>>>> types.
>>>>> There is little involved in dropping your link. Also there is 
>>>>> little chance
>>>>> of you knowing what the interfering source is without some leg 
>>>>> work. In 3650
>>>>> only people who get a license can launch. Base stations must be 
>>>>> certified
>>>>> systems with the FCC and must be registered with the FCC. The 
>>>>> rules state
>>>>> that it is a requirement that anyone using the band must work to 
>>>>> eliminate
>>>>> interference with other users. That means if you are there first 
>>>>> and someone
>>>>> interferes with you then they broke the law and it is their duty 
>>>>> to fix it.
>>>>> Also, since everyone must register base stations, you will know 
>>>>> who is
>>>>> interfering. In the case of WiMAX base stations, the call letters 
>>>>> of the
>>>>> license holder are actually transmitte

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

George...you can not plug-n-play components as I said earlier. It has to 
be certified as a system that makes use of a contention based protocol.

Leon

* George Rogato wrote, On 6/4/2008 11:22 AM:
> Thanks for explaining that Travis.
> I asked Jack Unger to look into this recently.
> There was a post somewhere else recently about 3650 use and I forwarded 
> it to Jack to find out from the FCC if in fact it is the way the post read.
>
> I'd like to hear Jack's opinion based on what he has found out from the FCC.
>
> As far as using those cards, if they work in mt and star, then for most 
> of us it's just add another card to the multi port board and go. It 
> sounds a lot cheaper than I had expected.
>
> George
>
> Travis Johnson wrote:
>   
>> John,
>>
>> Here is what I have heard or read so far:
>>
>> (1) I "heard" that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to "work it 
>> out" and that "more than likely" the FCC would not get involved in a 
>> frequency conflict.
>>
>> (2) Getting a license for 3650 takes about 2 hours, start to finish 
>> (from what I have heard from people that have done it). Meaning any 
>> person with Internet access can have a valid, FCC license in 2 hours.
>>
>> (3) The FCC has already approved someone using just the Ubiquiti XR3 
>> card as the registered "base station". Putting that card in a MT system 
>> does not broadcast any call signs or info in the packet frame, yet you 
>> are "licensed" and "FCC legal" as per the registration.
>>
>> (4) If it truly is a "first registered, everyone else work around me" 
>> then I will be registering every single tower within a 1,000 mile radius 
>> from my NOC. :)
>>
>> I'm not trying bash you or anything you said... I'm just thinking the 
>> 3650 band is going to get just as messy as the 5ghz band within a few 
>> years... and I think the FCC has given "false hope" that it is somewhat 
>> protected... yet I don't see how.
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> John Scrivner wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is how it is different than 5 GHz. In 5 GHz the rules are that you have
>>> to accept interference. Also any equipment on earth can use the band from
>>> mobile phones to cameras and of course broadband devices of many types.
>>> There is little involved in dropping your link. Also there is little chance
>>> of you knowing what the interfering source is without some leg work. In 3650
>>> only people who get a license can launch. Base stations must be certified
>>> systems with the FCC and must be registered with the FCC. The rules state
>>> that it is a requirement that anyone using the band must work to eliminate
>>> interference with other users. That means if you are there first and someone
>>> interferes with you then they broke the law and it is their duty to fix it.
>>> Also, since everyone must register base stations, you will know who is
>>> interfering. In the case of WiMAX base stations, the call letters of the
>>> license holder are actually transmitted in the data frames which show up as
>>> the intefering carrier within the monitoring tools in the base stations
>>> themselves. I think there is a great opportunity in this band and I am proud
>>> to say I just got my license in 3650 last week. I am looking to build my
>>> first WiMAX base station very soon.
>>> Scriv
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>   
 So, how exactly does 3.65ghz licensing work? If Rapid Link has licensed
 a base station at tower X, and I want to license 3.65ghz at tower X as
 well, what happens? Also, what if I want to license at Tower Y that is
 100 feet away? Is this band really any different than 5ghz, except you
 have to tell the FCC where your base stations are located?

 Travis
 Microserv

 Mike Prachar wrote:
 
 
> -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to AT&T
> -
>
>
> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>
> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting edge
> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
> through our Channel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>
> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
> enjoy guaranteed high speed connectivity, voice and internet bundled
> service, at the best cost/efficiency ratio in the industry.
>
> Matt Liotta, Chief Technology Officer of Rapid Link states, "We are
> clearly ahead of the competition and the technology power curve with
> this offering.  Customers are

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/4/2008 10:07 AM:
> Why does it matter who it is? Fill out the FCC online registration 
> forms, get your 3650 license using the XR3 specs and description and 
> away you go.
Because it is wrong and not legal. We already have the license. The 3650 
solution the FCC concocted is not just a simple plug-n-build solution. 
There are very specific requirements and because a device has modular 
acceptance does not mean it is certified for that specific part 90 use. 
As I previously said, I'm not going to jeopardize any of my FCC licenses 
because we want to deploy on 3650 and it's taking so long.

Leon
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> George Rogato wrote:
>> Does this mean we can all do this now?
>> Who is the wisp?
>>
>> George
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>   
>>> On one of the wireless lists someone stated that the FCC approved a site 
>>> registration with the XR3's FCC ID.  They even corrected an error in his 
>>> registration.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:07 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>> * Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
>>>>   
>>>>> Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big"
>>>>> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those
>>>>> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for less
>>>>> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other 
>>>>> frequencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>> You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with
>>>> Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until
>>>> someone goes through the process it's not doable.
>>>>
>>>> Leon
>>>>   
>>>>> Travis
>>>>> Microserv
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something cheaper 
>>>>>> comes along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 mPCI card 
>>>>>> when I normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so I have to go 
>>>>>> with a more expensive solution... I think I figured $500 for a CPE 
>>>>>> instead of the $150 I pay now.  I don't expect to pay $150 for a WiMAX 
>>>>>> CPE or $750 for a WiMAX AP, but the prices these guys are asking is 
>>>>>> ridiculous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   - Original Message - 
>>>>>>   From: Travis Johnson
>>>>>>   To: WISPA General List
>>>>>>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>>>>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for $7,000 
>>>>>> basestations? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Travis
>>>>>>   Microserv
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>>>> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a time 
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>>&g

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Mike Hammett wrote, On 6/4/2008 9:48 AM:
> On one of the wireless lists someone stated that the FCC approved a 
> site registration with the XR3's FCC ID.  They even corrected an error 
> in his registration.
That's a mistake because it is a modular certification not a system 
certification. Someone is trying to push one past the feds I believe.

>
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 8:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>
>> * Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
>>> Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big"
>>> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those
>>> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for 
>>> less
>>> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other 
>>> frequencies.
>>>
>> You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with
>> Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until
>> someone goes through the process it's not doable.
>>
>> Leon
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something 
>>>> cheaper comes along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 
>>>> mPCI card when I normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so 
>>>> I have to go with a more expensive solution... I think I figured 
>>>> $500 for a CPE instead of the $150 I pay now.  I don't expect to 
>>>> pay $150 for a WiMAX CPE or $750 for a WiMAX AP, but the prices 
>>>> these guys are asking is ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   - Original Message -   From: Travis Johnson
>>>>   To: WISPA General List
>>>>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for 
>>>> $7,000 basestations? :)
>>>>
>>>>   Travis
>>>>   Microserv
>>>>
>>>>   Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a 
>>>> time or
>>>> two.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" 
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   I thought you were One ring ...
>>>>
>>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>> Behalf Of Mike Prachar
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:37 PM
>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>> Importance: High
>>>>
>>>> -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to 
>>>> AT&T
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
>>>> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
>>>> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
>>>> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>>>>
>>>> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
>>>> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting 
>>>> edge
>>>> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
>>

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

You're welcome. First I don't want to jeopardize my FCC Commercial and 
Amateur licenses because of something stupid. And second, I'm deep in 
the middle of all this trying to negotiate with FSS' and have been in 
talks with higher ups at the WTB over the last few months.

Leon

* ralph wrote, On 6/4/2008 9:40 AM:
> Thank You for saying that.
> I hope all of us have sense enough not to home build solutions on a LICENSED
> band now that we have one!
>
> Ralph
> Brightlan.net
> Atlanta Ga
> (yes, we too have a 3650 license - big woop-de-do)
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:07 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
> * Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
>   
>> Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big" 
>> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those 
>> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for less 
>> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other frequencies.
>>   
>> 
> You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with 
> Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until 
> someone goes through the process it's not doable.
>
> Leon
>   
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>   
>> 
>>> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something cheaper
>>>   
> comes along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 mPCI card when I
> normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so I have to go with a more
> expensive solution... I think I figured $500 for a CPE instead of the $150 I
> pay now.  I don't expect to pay $150 for a WiMAX CPE or $750 for a WiMAX AP,
> but the prices these guys are asking is ridiculous.
>   
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>   - Original Message - 
>>>   From: Travis Johnson 
>>>   To: WISPA General List 
>>>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>
>>>
>>>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for $7,000
>>>   
> basestations? :)
>   
>>>   Travis
>>>   Microserv
>>>
>>>   Mike Hammett wrote: 
>>> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a time
>>>   
> or 
>   
>>> two.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>>
>>>
>>>   I thought you were One ring ...
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of Mike Prachar
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:37 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>> Importance: High
>>>
>>> -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to AT&T
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
>>> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
>>> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
>>> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>>>
>>> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
>>> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting edge
>>> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
>>> through our Channel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
>>> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>>>
>>> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
>>> enjoy guaranteed high speed connecti

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* ralph wrote, On 6/4/2008 9:40 AM:
> Who?
>   
yeah who? My contacts at Ubiquiti as of about a week or two ago said 
there are no FCC Approved solutions. Ubiquity's device is FCC approved 
but just as a modular component.

Leon
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Travis Johnson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>
>  
>
> Another WISP has already gotten an FCC license using the Ubiquiti XR3 card
> as the registered device... in fact, the FCC actually called this person to
> clarify the specified frequency ranges.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote: 
>
> * Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
>   
>
> Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big" 
> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those 
> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for less 
> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other frequencies.
>   
> 
>
> You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with 
> Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until 
> someone goes through the process it's not doable.
>  
> Leon
>   
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>  
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>   
> 
>
> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something cheaper comes
> along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 mPCI card when I
> normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so I have to go with a more
> expensive solution... I think I figured $500 for a CPE instead of the $150 I
> pay now.  I don't expect to pay $150 for a WiMAX CPE or $750 for a WiMAX AP,
> but the prices these guys are asking is ridiculous.
>  
>  
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>  
>  
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Travis Johnson 
>   To: WISPA General List 
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>  
>  
>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for $7,000
> basestations? :)
>  
>   Travis
>   Microserv
>  
>   Mike Hammett wrote: 
> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a time or 
> two.
>  
>  
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>  
>  
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Gino Villarini"  <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"  <mailto:wireless@wispa.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>  
>  
>   I thought you were One ring ...
>  
> Gino A. Villarini
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mike Prachar
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:37 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
> Importance: High
>  
> -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to AT&T
> -
>  
>  
> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>  
> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting edge
> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
> through our Channel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>  
> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
> enjoy guaranteed high speed connectivity, voice and internet bundled
> service, at the best cost/efficiency ratio in the industry.
>  
> Matt Liotta, Chief Technology Officer of Rapid Link states, "We are
> clearly ahead of the competition and the technology power curve with
> this offering.  Customers are increasingly discovering the limitations
> of antiquated technologies.  Following the recent release of WiMax
> technologies and equipment in the United States, Rapid link is proud to
> be a licensed WiMax carrier offering this breakthrough service to our
> foundation of customers in the greater Atlanta area."
>

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

The rules are quite clear unfortunately. The FCC opened a can of worms 
IMHO. All "licensees have to work together to resolve anything. There 
are no first rights to a site I've been told.

Leon

* Scottie Arnett wrote, On 6/4/2008 2:45 AM:
> All I can say is OUCH!
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:32:35 -0500
>
>   
>> I am going to launch and I am going to hold others to the interference
>> avoidance requirements of the rules. If others come to town after me and
>> interfere with me and do not remedy it after I spend several grand to launch
>> then they will move or face a day in court. That is what is going to be
>> different in my eyes. People have a mandate to behave in this band. I
>> genuinely believe this gives a "first in" upper hand in this band. At least
>> that is my perception. Others may vary.
>> Scriv
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>  John,
>>>
>>> Here is what I have heard or read so far:
>>>
>>> (1) I "heard" that 3650 users that are conflicting will have to "work it
>>> out" and that "more than likely" the FCC would not get involved in a
>>> frequency conflict.
>>>
>>> (2) Getting a license for 3650 takes about 2 hours, start to finish (from
>>> what I have heard from people that have done it). Meaning any person with
>>> Internet access can have a valid, FCC license in 2 hours.
>>>
>>> (3) The FCC has already approved someone using just the Ubiquiti XR3 card
>>> as the registered "base station". Putting that card in a MT system does not
>>> broadcast any call signs or info in the packet frame, yet you are "licensed"
>>> and "FCC legal" as per the registration.
>>>
>>> (4) If it truly is a "first registered, everyone else work around me" then
>>> I will be registering every single tower within a 1,000 mile radius from my
>>> NOC. :)
>>>
>>> I'm not trying bash you or anything you said... I'm just thinking the 3650
>>> band is going to get just as messy as the 5ghz band within a few years...
>>> and I think the FCC has given "false hope" that it is somewhat protected...
>>> yet I don't see how.
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>>
>>> John Scrivner wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is how it is different than 5 GHz. In 5 GHz the rules are that you have
>>> to accept interference. Also any equipment on earth can use the band from
>>> mobile phones to cameras and of course broadband devices of many types.
>>> There is little involved in dropping your link. Also there is little chance
>>> of you knowing what the interfering source is without some leg work. In 3650
>>> only people who get a license can launch. Base stations must be certified
>>> systems with the FCC and must be registered with the FCC. The rules state
>>> that it is a requirement that anyone using the band must work to eliminate
>>> interference with other users. That means if you are there first and someone
>>> interferes with you then they broke the law and it is their duty to fix it.
>>> Also, since everyone must register base stations, you will know who is
>>> interfering. In the case of WiMAX base stations, the call letters of the
>>> license holder are actually transmitted in the data frames which show up as
>>> the intefering carrier within the monitoring tools in the base stations
>>> themselves. I think there is a great opportunity in this band and I am proud
>>> to say I just got my license in 3650 last week. I am looking to build my
>>> first WiMAX base station very soon.
>>> Scriv
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL 
>>> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  So, how exactly does 3.65ghz licensing work? If Rapid Link has licensed
>>> a base station at tower X, and I want to license 3.65ghz at tower X as
>>> well, what happens? Also, what if I want to license at Tower Y that is
>>> 100 feet away? Is this band really any different than 5ghz, except you
>>> have to tell the FCC where your base stations are located?
>>>
>>> Travis
>>> Microserv
>>>
>>> Mike Prachar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to AT&T
>>> -
>>>
>>>
>>> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
>>> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
>>> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
>>> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>>>
>>> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
>>> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting edge
>>> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
>>> through our Channel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
>>> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>>>
>>> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
>>> enjoy guaranteed high speed connectivity, 

Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

* Travis Johnson wrote, On 6/3/2008 10:17 PM:
> Yup... and it's only because they can... they are getting the "big" 
> operators to pay that kind of money, so they will keep selling at those 
> prices. Supply and demand... but you can build a MT 3.65ghz CPE for less 
> than $400, but it's still expensive compared to all the other frequencies.
>   
You can Heathkit your own 3650 solution with 
Mikrotik/Ubquitit/StarOS/etc but it is NOT FCC Type Accepted. Until 
someone goes through the process it's not doable.

Leon
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>   
>> Yeah, I think I'm going to be passing on 3650 until something cheaper comes 
>> along.  Ubiquiti has the XR3, but that's still a $260 mPCI card when I 
>> normally spend $35.  There's also no RooTennas, so I have to go with a more 
>> expensive solution... I think I figured $500 for a CPE instead of the $150 I 
>> pay now.  I don't expect to pay $150 for a WiMAX CPE or $750 for a WiMAX AP, 
>> but the prices these guys are asking is ridiculous.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>   - Original Message - 
>>   From: Travis Johnson 
>>   To: WISPA General List 
>>   Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 9:01 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>
>>
>>   Maybe they are trying to get enough new business to pay for $7,000 
>> basestations? :)
>>
>>   Travis
>>   Microserv
>>
>>   Mike Hammett wrote: 
>> and I thought they already posted this or a similar press release a time or 
>> two.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Gino Villarini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>>
>>
>>   I thought you were One ring ...
>>
>> Gino A. Villarini
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>> tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Prachar
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:37 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] Rapid Link Launches WiMax Service in Atlanta
>> Importance: High
>>
>> -  Atlanta business can now enjoy the only wide-area alternative to AT&T
>> -
>>
>>
>> OMAHA, NE - June 3, 2008 - Rapid Link, Incorporated (OTCBB: RPID), a
>> leading provider of WiMax and Communication Services, announced today
>> the official launch of its much anticipated WiMax service offering in
>> the Atlanta Metropolitan area.
>>
>> Following the soft launch of this service in February 2008, Rapid Link
>> has several active customers enjoying the benefits of this cutting edge
>> technology.  Due to the overwhelming success of the early release
>> through our Channel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
>> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>>
>> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
>> enjoy guaranteed high speed connectivity, voice and internet bundled
>> service, at the best cost/efficiency ratio in the industry.
>>
>> Matt Liotta, Chief Technology Officer of Rapid Link states, "We are
>> clearly ahead of the competition and the technology power curve with
>> this offering.  Customers are increasingly discovering the limitations
>> of antiquated technologies.  Following the recent release of WiMax
>> technologies and equipment in the United States, Rapid link is proud to
>> be a licensed WiMax carrier offering this breakthrough service to our
>> foundation of customers in the greater Atlanta area."
>>
>>
>> About Rapid Link
>>
>> Rapid Link, Incorporated is a Diversified Communication Services
>> company, supplying bundled internet and voice services to Business and
>> Residential customers. Rapid Link offers broadband access via its own
>> facilities to ensure fast and reliable delivery of its content. As a
>> leading licensed WiMAX carrier, Rapid Link is on the cutting edge of
>> this exciting new technology. We are one of the only carriers that can
>> offer an end-to-end solution for our customers without a dependency on
>> any other company's resources.
>>
>> For more information, visit www.rapidlink.com.
>>
>> "Safe Harbor" Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
>> Act of 1995: With the exception of historical information, the
>> statements set forth above include forward-looking statements that
>> involve risk and uncertainties. The Company wishes to caution readers
>> that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ
>> materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Those factors
>> include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties such as the
>> failure to satisfy contractually agreed upon closing conditions that may
>> delay or prevent the closings of subsequent debt financings contemplate

[WISPA] Sale: Last Batch of Tsunami and more Enterasys equipment

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

We have the following equipment available for shipment:

Tsunami 45m full duplex radio 301-27710-1A1/301-27710-1A2 (5.7/5.8g)
Tsunami 100m full duplex radio 301-27720-1A1/301-27720-1A2 (5.3/5.8g)

Multiple Enterasys SSR8 with controller boards and fast ethernet cards
Multiple Enterasys SSR16 with controller boards, fast Ethernet and HSSI
Multiple Enterasys ANG1105 and ANG1100

The Tsunami radios were removed from service recently as we needed 
higher bandwidth backhauls. Radios do NOT come with antennas.

If interested in any of the above, please contact us off-list at 
703-787-7700 x6130 or via e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for particular 
details and quantity available.





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] Sale: Tsunami and Enterasys equipment

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

We have the following equipment available for shipment:
 

Tsunami 45m full duplex radio 301-27710-1A1/301-27710-1A2 (5.7/5.8g)

Tsunami 100m full duplex radio 301-27720-1A1/301-27720-1A2 (5.3/5.8g)

Multiple Enterasys SSR8 with controller boards and fast ethernet cards

Multiple Enterasys SSR16 with controller boards, fast Ethernet and HSSI

Multiple Enterasys ANG1105 and ANG1100
 

The Tsunami radios were removed from service recently as we needed 
higher bandwidth backhauls. Radios do NOT come with antennas.
 

If interested in any of the above, please contact us off-list at 
703-787-7700 x6130 or via e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 for particular details and quantity available.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.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] FYI - New how-to-get-a-3650-license whitepaper available -- link

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

I'm currently working on that myself. I have had numerous discussions 
with the WTB and IB over the last few months regarding the grandfathered 
FSS'

Leon

* Joe Miller wrote, On 4/8/2008 3:27 PM:
> Partrick,
>
> Thanks a lot, this is more information regarding the
> 3.65 ghz band than I've ever gotten from the FCC. 
>
> I wonder why that is?
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>   
>> Living in the fringe of an exclusion zone, I'd like
>> to see more information
>> on negotiating or contacting the existing license
>> holders...  
>>
>> On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:57:10 -0700, "Patrick Leary"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>>> I wrote a step-by-step guide showing the actual
>>>   
>> application process.
>> 
>>> 100% vendor neutral. You can download it from our
>>>   
>> Web site via the home
>> 
>>> page. Make sure to select the U.S. Web version
>>>   
>> from the drop down at the
>> 
>>> top right.
>>>
>>> http://www.alvarion.com/
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
> 
>   
>>> This footnote confirms that this email message has
>>>   
>> been scanned by
>> 
>>> PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious
>>>   
>> code, vandals &
>> computer
>> 
>>> viruses(84).
>>>
>>>   
> 
>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
> 
>   
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.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/
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>   
> 
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster 
> Total Access, No Cost.  
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] more decommissioned equipment

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

We've retired the following and looking to find a good home for them:

Tsunami 100M full duplex radio
Tsunami 45M full duplex radio
Barracuda Spam Firewall 400 (This was purchased from another company and 
we have no use for it.)

Please contact me off-list with any questions.

Thanks, Leon



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

[WISPA] Equipment for sale

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

We've got the following that we just removed from service replaced with 
higher bandwidth equipment:


Four (4) pairs of Tsunami 45m full duplex radios 
(301-27710-1a1/301-27710-1a2)

One (1) pair Tsunami 100m full duplex radio
Two (2) pairs Alvarion LB; one pair 36m, one pair 72m

No antennas included.

Please contact me off list for further information.

Thanks, Leon



begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik/RB112/SR9

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Mark Nash - Lists wrote:

What antenna are you using?
  

900 yagis and roos...ldz

Anyone used the 900MHz Rootenna?

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax

- Original Message - 
From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik/RB112/SR9


  

Mark Nash - Lists wrote:


Has anyone used the SR9's in a RB112?  They are a little bigger so will
  

they
  

physically fit?  How do you like them?

  

We're using them and they seem to work ok. Having the right antenna is a
key too.

leon


Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax



  







  

--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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







  
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik/RB112/SR9

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Mark Nash - Lists wrote:

Has anyone used the SR9's in a RB112?  They are a little bigger so will they
physically fit?  How do you like them?
  
We're using them and they seem to work ok. Having the right antenna is a 
key too.


leon

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax


  
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Transtector Lightning Suppression

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

I have a few of them to use with my Trango 900s. A little pricey but 
they're built well.


Leon

Eric Rogers wrote:

I don't know if anyone has looked into modular lightning suppression,
but I have been talking with someone from Transtector.  They make a 24V
version for Motorola with Cat5 jacks, and they make a 48V version for
Proxim/Cisco/Mikrotik/Whatever but they are screw terminals (for power
only).

 


He is looking to see if they can change the diodes on the 24V version to
allow clamp at 60V for the power side, and 15V on the data side with
Cat5 jacks.  Here is what it looks like
http://www.transtector.com/productdetail?item=1101-670.  Since this is
modular, I want to have the option to have Motorola, Mikrotik, and/or
Alvarion on the tower.  With this distribution panel, you can swap out
the lightning suppression to what you are using 24V equipment or 48V
Equipment.  Any ideas?  Anyone doing anything similar?

 


Would anyone else be interested in getting some?  I don't have any costs
yet, but he will get back with me soon.

 


Eric Rogers

Precision Data Solutions, LLC

 

  
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Larry Yunker wrote:
Aside from catching a reflection rather than the main signal, I 
suppose you could be over or under shooting one side or the other.  
Too much downtilt/uptilt could cause you to pick up a signal on a 
secondary lobe instead of a main lobe.  That would also tend to create 
a disparity in send/receive signal strength.

Hi Larry et al...

We got a 4 pole filter in this AM and stuck it up on the tower. Seems 
that made things worse. From what I can see using Winbox there is about 
a 6-7 db difference in the two signals not the 10 I mentioned earlier.


I am going to plot this out on TopoUSA now to see if we're going through 
dirt. Any other ideas at the moment?


Thanks leon



- Larry

- Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results



Larry Yunker wrote:

Sounds like multipath you are probably picking up a bounced signal
on one end.

could be  I think we saw this somewhere else but I can't remember;
we did so much on Thursday it sometimes is a blur :-(
I think the plan is to try a yagi up on the tower in place of the sector
for a test and check the signal at the one 900 CPE in the attic
remotely. (We've only got one 900 CPE currently.)

Any other ideas?

Thanks leon

--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
<http://www.backwoodswireless.net> 505 B Main Street
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510&hl=en> 


Blandon, PA 19510
"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common <http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/> Want
a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/>







begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Larry Yunker wrote:
Sounds like multipath you are probably picking up a bounced signal 
on one end.
could be  I think we saw this somewhere else but I can't remember; 
we did so much on Thursday it sometimes is a blur :-(
I think the plan is to try a yagi up on the tower in place of the sector 
for a test and check the signal at the one 900 CPE in the attic 
remotely. (We've only got one 900 CPE currently.)


Any other ideas?

Thanks leon

--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor  
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
 505 B Main Street
 
Blandon, PA 19510

"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common  	Want 
a signature like this? 


begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;work:484-335-9920
tel;fax:484-335-9921
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Larry Yunker wrote:

How much difference are you seeing?  2db or more?

yeah maybe 6-10 I think


- Original Message - From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results



Larry Yunker wrote:

Let us know more about the configuration(s) and maybe we can figure
out what else you should try.

OK here's the Sector antenna:

http://www.teletronics.com/tant900sector12-5dbi.html

The yagi's are PacWireless YA9-13

Interesting that at the customer with the yagi in the attic, the
CPE-tower signal was weaker than the tower-CPE signal. Both running the
Ubiquiti 900 cards on a  RB112 and the sector antenna is 12.5 db gain so
you would think the signals at each end should be pretty close.

THanks leon




 





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Larry Yunker wrote:
Let us know more about the configuration(s) and maybe we can figure 
out what else you should try.

OK here's the Sector antenna:

http://www.teletronics.com/tant900sector12-5dbi.html

The yagi's are PacWireless YA9-13

Interesting that at the customer with the yagi in the attic, the 
CPE-tower signal was weaker than the tower-CPE signal. Both running the 
Ubiquiti 900 cards on a  RB112 and the sector antenna is 12.5 db gain so 
you would think the signals at each end should be pretty close.


THanks leon
begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Larry Yunker wrote:
What antenna/cable solution are you using on the client side of the 
link? How far are you trying to shoot?
Down in Virginia we're using a 13db (11 ele) Yagi horizontal shooting to 
a tower where there is a 120* hor sector antenna. Antenna pigtail 
connects through a double-barrel right into the radio. Any ideas? I am 
stumped as this should work; in one case the yagi is in the attic and 
the signal is horrible. We're trying to shoot from 1-6 miles or so. We 
did get a -65 way on the other side up in the clear when we were driving 
around on Thurs.


Thanks leon
- Original Message ----- From: "Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results



Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

Vertical and horizontal were tried.  The results are the same.

Thanks Lonnie...we're trying some Mikrotik with the 900 cards and not
having much luck through the trees using a 900 120* sector H-pol

Leon


Lonnie

On 9/17/06, *Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838

I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear.  Needless 
to say
this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM 
place

in our tool chest.  Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through
some
trees.  This is truly NON LOS.


Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use?

Thanks leon

-- *Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
<http://www.backwoodswireless.net> 505 B Main Street

<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510&hl=en> 


Blandon, PA 19510
"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common
<http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/> Want a signature like
this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/>


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

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

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






--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/


--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
<http://www.backwoodswireless.net> 505 B Main Street
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510&hl=en> 


Blandon, PA 19510
"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common <http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/> Want
a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/>





 





--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

Vertical and horizontal were tried.  The results are the same.
Thanks Lonnie...we're trying some Mikrotik with the 900 cards and not 
having much luck through the trees using a 900 120* sector H-pol


Leon


Lonnie

On 9/17/06, *Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:


Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:

http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838

I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear.  Needless to say
this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place
in our tool chest.  Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through
some
trees.  This is truly NON LOS.


Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use?

Thanks leon

-- 
*Leon Zetekoff*

Proprietor  
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
<http://www.backwoodswireless.net> 505 B Main Street
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510&hl=en>
Blandon, PA 19510
"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common
<http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/>  Want a signature like
this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/>


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

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

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






--
Lonnie Nunweiler
Valemount Networks Corporation
http://www.star-os.com/ 


--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor  
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
<http://www.backwoodswireless.net> 505 B Main Street
<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=505+B+Main+Street%2CBlandon%2CPA+19510&hl=en> 
Blandon, PA 19510

"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common <http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/1265359/> 	Want 
a signature like this? <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/1265359/>


begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;work:484-335-9920
tel;fax:484-335-9921
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Initial SR9 test results

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Lonnie Nunweiler wrote:
http://forums.star-os.com/showthread.php?t=5838
  
  
I just posted our early rsults of the 900 MHz gear.  Needless to say
  
this is better than I was hoping for and this stuff has a FIRM place
  
in our tool chest.  Forget higher power on 2.4 GHz to get through some
  
trees.  This is truly NON LOS.
  
  

Hi Lonnie...what polarization did you use?

Thanks leon

-- 

  

   Leon Zetekoff
  Proprietor 
  


  
  

  
 Work:
484-335-9920
Mobile:
610-223-8642
Fax: 484-335-9921

 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff

 BackWoods Wireless
 505 B Main Street
 Blandon, PA 19510 
"Bringing
Broadband Technology to Rural Areas" 
  

  
  


  See who we
know in common
  Want a signature like
this? 

  




begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;work:484-335-9920
tel;fax:484-335-9921
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] What your customers are doing with their internet connection?

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Dawn DiPietro wrote:
Here is a link to one of the many things available to broadband 
customers;

http://secondlife.com/

On first look it reminds me of the world "THE PRISONER" was inLEON
--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor  
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
 505 B Main Street
 
Blandon, PA 19510

"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common  	Want 
a signature like this? 


begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;work:484-335-9920
tel;fax:484-335-9921
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] Trango M900 AP - Connectorized?

[Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE]

Mark Nash wrote:

I'm getting conflicting information from Trango sales reps, their online PDF
datasheet and others who know the product.  So... Does the M900 AP come
connectorized?  If so, what connector?

My application is about 2 miles NLOS (many trees).  Looking to do it with
omni...don't have to go hpol.  Who's using what and are you happy with it?

Thanks!
  
Hi Mark...I have one and it does have a connector; I believe it's 
Reverse SMA. We're not deployed yet but I'm going to be using it with an 
omni as well. Take care leon

Mark Nash
Network Engineer
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-
541-998-5599 fax


  


--
*Leon Zetekoff*
Proprietor  
*Work:* 484-335-9920
*Mobile:* 610-223-8642
*Fax:* 484-335-9921
*Email:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
*http://www.linkedin.com/in/leonzetekoff*
*BackWoods Wireless*
 505 B Main Street
 
Blandon, PA 19510

"Bringing Broadband Technology to Rural Areas"

See who we know in common  	Want 
a signature like this? 


begin:vcard
fn:Leon Zetekoff
n:Zetekoff;Leon
org:BackWoods Wireless
adr;dom:;;505 B Main Street;Blandon;PA;19510
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Owner
tel;work:484-335-9920
tel;fax:484-335-9921
tel;home:610-916-0230
tel;cell:610-223-8642
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.backwoodswireless.net
version:2.1
end:vcard

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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