Re: [WISPA] Looking for a operator in South Dakota who can point us to Tier 1 PoPs near Aberdeen

[Mitch]

*Matthew W. Shultz *| Account Executive - Wholesale

D: 612-314-2212 |

matthew.shu...@consolidated.com __

consolidated.com | NASDAQ: CNSL



On 1/16/2018 8:03 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
"Tier 1" is not a useful term anymore. You're also not going to find 
the top carriers in Aberdeen.


In Aberdeen, I'd be looking to SDN Communications.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 


*From: *"Benjamin Huang" 
*To: *wireless@wispa.org
*Sent: *Monday, January 15, 2018 9:05:09 PM
*Subject: *[WISPA] Looking for a operator in South Dakota who can 
point us to Tier 1 PoPs near Aberdeen


Hey Guys:

I have a customer who's looking for IP transit via a Tier 1's PoP in 
Aberdeen South Dakota.


Anyone knows and operator in SD or any SD operators lurking who can 
point us to the right direction.


Anything would be appreciated

--
Benjamin Huang
Looking for a better internet provider? 
_Book a meeting with me _
(415) 429-6397

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



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


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

Re: [WISPA] Long range adjustments XM/XW client XC AP

[Mitch]

On the Gen2s I cant find the no ACK for PtP

and on the prism the only way we have gotten link over 14.3 was set to

auto... Not the best but works for now till UBNT fixes it

Mitch


On 10/13/2017 6:17 PM, Rick Boucher wrote:
> We are in PTMP.  Where would I adjust the No-Ack in there with 8.4.1?
>
> Rick
> -
>
>
> Rick Boucher
> Webmaster / Systems Admin
> Orcas Online / San Juan Web
>
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Nick Bright  wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/2017 3:46 PM, Rick Boucher wrote:
>>> We have 6 or so customers out past 15 miles. They have either Rocket XM 
>>> with 3RD-5G-30 dishes or NanoBeam M5 400 (XW)
>>>
>>> We’ve upgraded a couple of APs to Rocket 5AC Prisms.
>>>
>>> 20mhz channels.
>>> New firmware on all of them.  xm6.1.1, xw6.1.1, xc8.4.1
>>> Broadcast channel does not seem to matter.
>>>
>>> The clients out past 14.5 miles drop all the time - up and down.  When they 
>>> are up their connection is reasonable 69/71 but throughput is very 
>>> negligible.
>>> Seems like they link up at about 25mbps and then the connection 
>>> deteriorates to kbps and them they drop out.
>>>
>>> On the previous XM Rocket M5 AP the connection stayed up and was 
>>> serviceable.
>>>
>>> Any adjustments recommended for the connection?
>> That sounds like what happened to a 26 mile PTP link I had if "PTP
>> No-Ack" mode wasn't enabled. Like there's a hardware distance limit (ack
>> timeout) that's been exceeded.
>>
>> -- 
>> ---
>> -  Nick Bright-
>> -  Vice President of Technology   -
>> -  Valnet -=- We Connect You -=-  -
>> -  Tel 888-332-1616 x 315 / Fax 620-331-0789  -
>> -  Web http://www.valnet.net/ -
>> ---
>> - Are your files safe?-
>> - Valnet Vault - Secure Cloud Backup  -
>> - More information & 30 day free trial at -
>> - http://www.valnet.net/services/valnet-vault -
>> ---
>>
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

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

Re: [WISPA] Sturgis SD service

[Mitch]

Ralph

We are not too far from Sturgis

Let me know what I can do or contact

Mitch Koep

218-851-8689 cell


On 7/11/2017 8:41 AM, ralph wrote:


We do marinas and campgrounds in the Southeast and had a customer 
staying at one of them inquire about us doing their campground in Sturgis.


180 campsites and 29 cabins. Although we did the project for Full 
Throttle Saloon (before the TV show and before it burned down), we 
don’t do any other Sturgis work.


Is there a WISP or even an integrator here that can do a project in 
Sturgis?   It would probably be small APs in the cabins and then some 
outdoor ones in the campground, behind a captive portal. And all 
probably interconnected wirelessly.


I can recommend a provider for the captive portal part that doesn’t 
take a cut of your profits.  Just requires a Mikrotik router at the site.


Ralph


<https://www.avast.com/en-us/lp-safe-emailing-3176-a?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-3176-a> 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
<https://www.avast.com/en-us/lp-safe-emailing-3176-a?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=oa-3176-a> 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


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


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

Re: [WISPA] Exalt Radio repairs

[Mitch]

We send our Exalt back to Exalt for repairs

Mitch


On 6/26/2017 9:40 AM, Marco Coelho wrote:
Do any list members have recommendations for licensed radio repairs 
for Exalt rc111000 11GHz radios?


Just had one killed by a strike Friday.  What are the odds I'm driving 
by the tower at Midnight when the strike its and my phone gets the text.


crapola.  At least I had spares.

Marco

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


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


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

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

[Mitch]

I here protect existing...What about new PtP priority over PtMP??



On 6/7/2017 4:34 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> For 6Ghz it would likely be a coordinated system similar to the SAS system 
> planned for CBRS but without the ESC portion.  The coordination from the SAS 
> would protect existing users and links.  I would expect to see a professional 
> installer requirement similar to CBRS rules.   Part 101 is a small part of 
> the potentially available spectrum between 5900 and 7200.   There are plenty 
> of other users that would need to be protected as well.  Whatever happens 
> here isn't going to be true unlicensed spectrum.
>
> My question earlier was more general than just the 6Ghz space.   There are 
> other frequency bands can be looked at for PTMP that can make use of a SAS 
> type of system to allow multiple uses of currently underutilized spectrum, 
> but they all have some form of incumbent.  The TV Whitespace rules are 
> largely useless because the NAB tried so hard to protect its turf that the 
> rules make it very difficult to use for PTMP.I don't believe we should be 
> shutting down anything that can get us more PTMP space but should instead be 
> supporting proposals that protect what we have while finding additional ways 
> to reach customers.
>
> Mark Radabaugh
> Amplex
> 22690 Pemberville Rd
> Luckey, OH 43447
> 419-261-5996
>
>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote:
>>> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have
>>> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care?
>>
>> I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band
>> should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs have for licensed links.
>>
>> ~Seth
>> ___
>> Wireless mailing list
>> Wireless@wispa.org
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>

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

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

[Mitch]

+1000

Us too


On 6/4/2017 7:45 PM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote:


  I think the 6Ghz band need to stay for PtP links only. As for band 
sharing I think that the need for reliable wireless back-haul far 
outweighs any benefit of moving the band completely to part 15.


  Use of this band for PtMP applications should not be permitted and 
all installations should require registration and professional 
installation. As for higher power and larger channels: I do think the 
band could use some updates. But not at the expense of the current links.


 We've seen the 5.1Ghz band fill in with noise almost as soon as 
certifications rolled out. I don't want hundreds of "Xfinity wifi" 
SSID's in 6ghz as well.


 While I don't think our company alone counts as significant 
opposition, you can count us as "significantly opposed".


Garrett Shankle

Senior Field Technician

Virginia Broadband LLC.

(540)-829-1700



-Original Message-
From: mike.l...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2017 7:35pm
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Looking for opinions on a proposal for PTMP in 
6Ghz Part 101 spectrum


+1000

> On Jun 4, 2017, at 16:23, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the
>> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant
>> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.
>
>
> I think that if the history of behavior with unlicensed is any
> indication, then all licensed PTP links will be at risk of seeing
> substantial interference by idiots and would be at high risk of being
> forced offline.
>
> ~Seth
> ___
> Wireless mailing list
> Wireless@wispa.org
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless



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


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

Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs

[Mitch]

Just got off the phone with our local State Inspector

His take is if the device is outside and NOT getting power

from inside the property it is located at then it is exempt (such as

telco and CATV).

If the outdoor device gets power from inside the property

then it is NOT exempt.

This is how I read it

Mitch




On 05/12/2017 11:16 AM, garrettshan...@vabb.com wrote:


Considering V.A. doesn't have a separate certification for low 
voltage, I  certainly hope we're excluded. It would be difficult to 
get all of our technicians though a 3 year apprenticeship as required 
by law for a full certification.




-Original Message-
From: "Matt Hoppes" 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 12:10pm
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs

Ummm. We are exclusively  excluded. You even highlighted it.

On May 12, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Mitch <mailto:mi...@abetterwireless.com>> wrote:


Looks like all installers will have to be licensed Electricians
for everything and anything that connects to a power source
Am I reading wrong?


NFPA 70: DOCUMENT SCOPE
90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and removal of
electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and
communications conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical
fiber cables and raceways for the following:
(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures,
mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and floating buildings
(2) Yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial substations
(3) Installations of conductors and equipment that connect to the
supply of electricity
(4) Installations used by the electric utility, such as office
buildings, warehouses, garages, machine shops, and recreational
buildings, that are not an integral part of a generating plant,
substation, or control center
*(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:*
(1) Installations in ships, watercraft other than floating
buildings, railway rolling stock, aircraft, or automotive vehicles
other than mobile homes and recreational vehicles
Informational Note: Although the scope of this Code indicates that
the Code does not cover installations in ships, portions of this
Code are incorporated by reference into Title 46, Code of
Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113.
(2) Installations underground in mines and self-propelled mobile
surface mining machinery and its attendant electrical trailing cable
(3) Installations of railways for generation, transformation,
transmission, energy storage, or distribution of power used
exclusively for operation of rolling stock or installations used
exclusively for signaling and communications purposes
*(4) Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive
control of communications utilities located outdoors or in
building spaces used exclusively for such installations*
(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations
a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated
metering, or
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for the
purpose of communications, metering, generation, control,
transformation, transmission, energy storage, or distribution of
electric energy, or
c. Are located in legally established easements or rights-of-way, or
d. Are located by other written agreements either designated by or
recognized by public service commissions, utility commissions, or
other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction for such
installations. These written agreements shall be limited to
installations for the purpose of communications, metering,
generation, control, transformation, transmission, energy storage,
or distribution of electric energy where legally established
easements or rights-of-way cannot be obtained. These installations
shall be limited to federal lands, Native American reservations
through the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian
Affairs, military bases, lands controlled by port authorities and
state agencies and departments, and lands owned by railroads.
*Informational Note to (4) and (5): Examples of utilities may
include those entities that are typically designated or recognized
by governmental law or regulation by public service/utility
commissions and that install, operate, and maintain electric
supply (such as generation, transmission, or distribution systems)
or communications systems (such as telephone, CATV,*
*Internet, satellite, or data services). Utilities may be subject
to compliance with codes and standards covering their regulated
activities as adopted under governmental law or regulation.*
Additional information can be found through consultation with 

[WISPA] New NEC rule it may hurt WISPs

[Mitch]

Looks like all installers will have to be licensed Electricians
for everything and anything that connects to a power source
Am I reading wrong?


NFPA 70: DOCUMENT SCOPE
90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation and removal of electrical 
conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications 
conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical fiber cables and 
raceways for the following:
(1) Public and private premises, including buildings, structures, mobile 
homes, recreational vehicles, and floating buildings

(2) Yards, lots, parking lots, carnivals, and industrial substations
(3) Installations of conductors and equipment that connect to the supply 
of electricity
(4) Installations used by the electric utility, such as office 
buildings, warehouses, garages, machine shops, and recreational 
buildings, that are not an integral part of a generating plant, 
substation, or control center

*(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:*
(1) Installations in ships, watercraft other than floating buildings, 
railway rolling stock, aircraft, or automotive vehicles other than 
mobile homes and recreational vehicles
Informational Note: Although the scope of this Code indicates that the 
Code does not cover installations in ships, portions of this Code are 
incorporated by reference into Title 46, Code of

Federal Regulations, Parts 110–113.
(2) Installations underground in mines and self-propelled mobile surface 
mining machinery and its attendant electrical trailing cable
(3) Installations of railways for generation, transformation, 
transmission, energy storage, or distribution of power used exclusively 
for operation of rolling stock or installations used exclusively for 
signaling and communications purposes
*(4) Installations of communications equipment under the exclusive 
control of communications utilities located outdoors or in building 
spaces used exclusively for such installations*
(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility 
where such installations

a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or
b. Are on property owned or leased by the electric utility for the 
purpose of communications, metering, generation, control, 
transformation, transmission, energy storage, or distribution of 
electric energy, or

c. Are located in legally established easements or rights-of-way, or
d. Are located by other written agreements either designated by or 
recognized by public service commissions, utility commissions, or other 
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction for such installations. These 
written agreements shall be limited to installations for the purpose of 
communications, metering, generation, control, transformation, 
transmission, energy storage, or distribution of electric energy where 
legally established easements or rights-of-way cannot be obtained. These 
installations shall be limited to federal lands, Native American 
reservations through the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, military bases, lands controlled by port authorities and 
state agencies and departments, and lands owned by railroads.
*Informational Note to (4) and (5): Examples of utilities may include 
those entities that are typically designated or recognized by 
governmental law or regulation by public service/utility commissions and 
that install, operate, and maintain electric supply (such as generation, 
transmission, or distribution systems) or communications systems (such 
as telephone, CATV,*
*_Internet, satellite, or data services_). Utilities may be subject to 
compliance with codes and standards covering their regulated activities 
as adopted under governmental law or regulation.*
Additional information can be found through consultation with the 
appropriate governmental bodies, such as state regulatory commissions, 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Communications 
Commission.
(C) Special Permission. The authority having jurisdiction for enforcing 
this Code may grant exception for the installation of conductors and 
equipment that are not under the exclusive control of the electric 
utilities and are used to connect the electric utility supply system to 
the service conductors of the premises served, provided such 
installations are outside a building or structure, or terminate inside 
at a readily accessible location nearest the point of entrance of the 
service conductors.


--
Mitch Koep

A Better Wireless
218-851-8689 cell

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

Re: [WISPA] nanobeam m2 shutting down

[Mitch]

Jan

Give em a call and I will try to help trouble shoot

Mitch Koep

218-851-8689 cell


On 10/26/2016 03:26 PM, OOLLC-Support wrote:
> am having an issue with a few nanobeam m2 (little moon shaped things).
> As looked at on the main tab the TX/RX goes to 1/130 Mbs and sticks
> there, customer calls and complains about no internet. Have to power
> cycle it to get it working again.  All other CPEs off same tower working
> fine which are mostly nanostation or airgrid models.  Upgrade to 5.6.9
> does not help.
>

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