Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
Regarding USF " wholesaler must have evidence that the reseller customer both “(1) [incorporates] the purchased telecommunications services into its own offerings, and (2) can reasonably be expected to contribute to support universal service based on revenues from those offerings." In the past it was possible to be exempt from your upstream from charging you, by only declaring that you were a reseller, and all that you had to do to get exempted was to show that you utilized the telecommunications services in your own retail offerings. The advantage to USF, would have been the ISP would likely sell the retail service for more money than the wholesale price and therefore collect higher USF funds. However, the loop whole for the ISP was that once they were exempt with their upstream, there was not much control to verify how much USF the downstream ISP would collect or be required to collect. For example, if the reseller ISP only sold information services "Internet Access", the ISP would never collect or pay USF. So, the above quoted clause did away with that loophole, by adding section (2), now making it a requirement that the wholesaler reasonably expect the reseller to pay into the USF based on revenues from those offerings. Meaning Wholesalers could make downstream ISPs prove they are paying into USF before allowing exemption. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:46 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs They all do. (i.e. try to screw the ISP/NSP/WISP) Chase down the person in-charge of their Tax Dept, and ask them for ITNA Tax Exemption Form :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net -- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:44:33 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs Oh really? Comcast wants to charge me 16% USF on a point to point to carry Internet traffic. Sent from my iPad On Apr 15, 2014, at 6:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: hmmm.. not quite accurate... Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to internet access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net -- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport and not an internet circuit. As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet access. Sent from my iPad On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, "Tom DeReggi" wrote: Guys, I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider. (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet IP) Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF. I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my claim to my upstream. THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost. The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost. The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost. First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the State. Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was applicable it was always only around 6%. Note: I do N
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
Im not understanding what you are asking, but The link I provided was the bill (internet freedom act) extended through Nov 2014, stating that it made it federal law that no state could tax Internet Access in any form. The uncertainty came in what the definition was of Internet access. And it is clarified in the text that telecommunications services used for Internet access was considered INternet Access and not taxable by the State, unless the state was grand fathered. (note, Im referring to my upstream trying to charge me VA communication tax. This does not apply to USF since USF is not a tax) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Hoppes To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 8:38 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs State? Or Federal? I read that as USC - so it would be Federal. Sent from my iPad On Apr 15, 2014, at 8:29 PM, "Tom DeReggi" wrote: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode47/lii_usc_TI_47_CH_5_SC_I_SE_151.pdf Regarding State TaxesIn support of Faisal's statements " The term ‘Internet access service’ does not include telecommunications services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used, or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access. " The Document further clarifies in multiple cases that telecommunications services purchased for the use to provide Internet Access are included as Internet Access. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Faisal Imtiaz To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:27 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs hmmm.. not quite accurate... Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to internet access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net -- From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport and not an internet circuit. As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet access. Sent from my iPad On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, "Tom DeReggi" wrote: Guys, I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider. (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet IP) Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF. I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my claim to my upstream. THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost. The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost. The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost. First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the State. Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was applicable it was always only around 6%. Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. So questions are 1) Am I exempt as a WISP. 2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate) 3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what is the current % rate?
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode47/lii_usc_TI_47_CH_5_SC_I_SE_151.pdf
Regarding State TaxesIn support of Faisal's statements
" The term ‘Internet access service’ does not include telecommunications
services, except to the extent such services are purchased, used,
or sold by a provider of Internet access to provide Internet access. "
The Document further clarifies in multiple cases that telecommunications
services purchased for the use to provide Internet Access are included as
Internet Access.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Faisal Imtiaz
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:27 PM
Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
hmmm.. not quite accurate...
Internet Freedom Act was updated to allow for taxes not to apply to
internet access as well as communication circuits carrying internet access.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
--
From: "Matt Hoppes"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
I believe the reason you are being taxed is because this is a transport and
not an internet circuit.
As far as I know the internet freedom act only applies to Internet access.
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 15, 2014, at 5:19 PM, "Tom DeReggi"
wrote:
Guys,
I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of
CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first
bill from my new upstream fiber provider.
(they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro
ethernet IP)
Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I
am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not
an End User Internet circuit.
In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF.
I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing
Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State
Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or
collect such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to
support my claim to my upstream.
THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me
The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost.
The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost.
The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber
cost.
First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by
the State.
Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was
applicable it was always only around 6%.
Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I
am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link.
So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not
an End User Internet circuit.
So questions are
1) Am I exempt as a WISP.
2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to
document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate)
3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so,
what is the current % rate?
4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I
classify myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im
not a CLEC).
5) Does it matter how I use the circuit?
6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly?
Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
301-515-7774
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
___
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] [Spam] Re: New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
Fred, Ok, so in summary A WISP Internet Provider is an "Information Service" and does not collect or charge USF. And that end-to-end Internet Information Service solution is composed of 3 In-line components, working togeather as one. 1. Wireless last mile (provider me) 2. Fiber-based Metro IP transport (provider A) 3. IP transit (provider B) And the sole purpose and use of the Metro-IP Transport link is to deliver "information Services" to the End User, as a part of the solution.. So, you are saying. Under that Circumstance, the Metro IP tranport layer can not be claimed as a "wholesale Component" of an "Information Service", and WISPs must consider themselves an End User of telecommunications Services, and be subject to USF and Taxation on that circuit, because Metro-IP Data services are considered Telecommunications services, regardless of how they might be used. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Fred Goldstein" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:55 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands > On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> Excellent Summry. Can you clarify. >> >> In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar >> to >> 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could >> transmit >> at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was >> increased >> via antenna gain. Does that still apply for the new UNII >> 5.750-5.850Ghz >> rules? > > Under the old "ISM" rules for 5725-5850, there was no EIRP limit for > point to point: > > (ii) Systems operating in the 5725-5850 MHz band that are used >exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ >transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without >any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted output power. > > Under the ISM rules for 2400-2483.5 MHz, there is a 1 for 3 rule, so you > can keep 2/3 of the EIRP above +36 that comes from antenna gain: > > (i) Systems operating in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that are used >exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations may employ >transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi provided >the maximum conducted output power of the intentional radiator is >reduced by 1 dB for every 3 dB that the directional gain of the antenna >exceeds 6 dBi. > > > Under the old U-NII rules for 5725-5825, there was an EIRP limit on > point to point that was higher than the +36 dBm limit for point to > multipoint. > > For fixed, point-to-point U-NII transmitters >that employ a directional antenna gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB >reduction in peak transmitter power and peak power spectral density for >each 1 dB of antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi would be required. > > So the old EIRP point to point limit under U-NII was +53 dBm. The FCC > proposed making that the new unified rule, but -- WISPA and members to > the rescue! -- ended up adopting the ISM "no EIRP limit" instead. Get > those Rocket dishes out... but only above 5725. > > > (BTW, "ISM" refers to Part 18 RF heaters. 15.247 is the unlicensed > intentional radiators using bands where ISM is the primary user of the > frequency, hence the nickname.) > >> I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new >> outdoor >> use of Unii 5.1 Ghz. > > Correct. The 5150-5250 U-NII-1 segment inherits the old U-NII-3 rule > that everybody got around via the ISM rule (boy is that confusing), > capping EIRP at +53. The new 5150-5250 fixed rule: > > For fixed point to-point transmitters that employ a directional antenna > gain greater than 23 dBi, a 1 dB reduction in maximum conducted output > power and maximum power spectral density is required for each 1 dB of > antenna gain in excess of 23 dBi. > >> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Fred Goldstein" >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM >>> Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands >>> >>> >>>> On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC >>>> 14-30) >>>> in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules. The actual R&O >>>> text was released later in the week. For the most part, it came out >>>> well for WISPs. Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of >>>> interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been >>
[WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs
Guys, I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider. (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet IP) Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF. I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my claim to my upstream. THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost. The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost. The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost. First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the State. Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was applicable it was always only around 6%. Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. So questions are 1) Am I exempt as a WISP. 2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate) 3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what is the current % rate? 4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I classify myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a CLEC). 5) Does it matter how I use the circuit? 6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly? Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands
Excellent Summry. Can you clarify. In previous ISM/UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz, the 2 to1 rule was allowed similar to 2.4Ghz, so that 5.8GHZ CPEs in Point-to-MultiPpoint systems could transmit at PTP EIRP (higher than the AP 36db EIRP limit) as long as it was increased via antenna gain. Does that still apply for the new UNII 5.750-5.850Ghz rules? I saw that you inferred that that was not likely allowed for the new outdoor use of Unii 5.1 Ghz. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > - Original Message - > From: "Fred Goldstein" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 12:25 PM > Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] New FCC rules for 5 GHz bands > > >> On Monday, the FCC formally adopted a First Report and Order (FCC 14-30) >> in ET Docket 13-49, revision of Part 15 U-NII rules. The actual R&O >> text was released later in the week. For the most part, it came out >> well for WISPs. Some rules have been tightened to reduce the chance of >> interference to radar, especially TDWR, but more spectrum has been >> opened to outdoor use. Note that this was not the final word on 13-49. >> It focused on the U-NII-1 band (5150-5250) and U-NII-3 band >> (5725-5825). The proposed new U-NII-2B and U-NII-4 bands were not >> addressed. Those are more controversial and await a later R&O. >> >> Key changes that were announced: >> >> The 5725-5850 ISM band (Rules Part 15.247) was essentially merged with >> U-NII-3 (15.407). The upper band edge of U-NII-3 was moved from 5825 to >> 5850 to match ISM. Wideband digital operation was removed from ISM, >> limiting 15.247 operation on that band to frequency hopping spread >> spectrum (narrowband) and the FH portion of hybrid devices. As of one >> year after publication in the Federal Register, no new 15.247 wideband >> devices will be type-approved for that band, and sale and importation >> must stop in two years. Existing devices may continue to be used. >> >> The WISP community did dodge a bullet here, as the new U-NII-3 rules are >> closer to the ISM rules than to the old U-NII rules. In particular, the >> proposal to limit EIRP of fixed point-to-point links to +53 dBm, the old >> U-NII-3 limit which did not apply to ISM, was not adopted. Fixed >> point-to-point U-NII-3 operation can still have unlimited antenna gain >> with 1 watt transmitter power. Some of the credit goes to WISPA, who is >> acknowledged in the Order. (Cambium too, while its former parent >> Motorola Solutions was on the wrong side.) Power spectral density rules >> were also modified to a favorable outcome. The old U-NII-3 rules >> required 20 MHz bandwidth for full power. The new rules are closer to >> ISM's, requiring a minimum 6 dB bandwidth of only 500 kHz for full >> power. Point to multipoint EIRP is still capped at +36 dBm. So there >> is little lost in the new rules, although the new type approval >> procedures will be just a bit harder than the old ones. >> >> The second major area of change was the U-NII-1 band, 5150-5250. This >> had been limited to indoor only use with a +17 dBm power limit. >> Globalstar, the low-earth-orbit satellite, is the primary user here, >> using it for backhaul (not handset) uplinks, and while LEOsats in >> general did not catch on as the FCC had expected when the old rule was >> written in 1997, Globalstar did not want its background noise level to >> be impacted. A deal was worked out that is still pretty good. >> >> Under the new rules, outdoor operation is now allowed, and the rules >> there are based on the old U-NII-3 rules. So the power limit is 1 watt, >> and access points may have up to 6 dB gain without lowering power (i.e., >> a +36 dBm EIRP cap). Point-to-point links may have up to 23 dB gain >> without lowering power (i.e., a +53 dBm EIRP cap). "Mobile and portable >> client devices" in that band are capped at 250 mW (+24) with 6 dB gain >> (i.e., a +30 dBm EIRP cap). There is no explicit rule for fixed client >> devices, like WISP CPE, so it appears to be treated as portable, as the >> definition of "fixed, point-to-point" explicitly excludes >> "point-to-multipoint systems". This could be rather limiting and might >> merit a little ex parte discussion with the Friendly Candy Company. The >> rule was written with WiFi access points (is CableWiFi messing up the >> spectrum in your neighborhood too?) in mind. >> >> In order to protect Globalstar, outdoor U-NII-1 access points have to be >> sure their EIRP more than 30 degrees
[WISPA] CAF-USF-StateTax for WISPs?
Guys, I've been out of the loop for a couple years, regarding current status of CAF/USF/Tax requirements for WISPs. I was surprised when I recieved my first bill from my new upstream fiber provider. (they are a dark fiber provider, recently expanded to also offer metro ethernet IP) Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. In the past, my Fiber providers never charged me any Taxes or USF. I was under the impression that as a WISP (Im not a CLEC) providing Broadband only services, I didnt need to collect or pay into USF, CAF, or State Taxes. And further, my Upstream should be exempt from having to pay and/or collect such fees from me. If so, I need to provide legal documentation to support my claim to my upstream. THe new fiber provider is trying to charge me The Federal USF stated was about 16.5% of monthly fiber cost. The VA Communication Tax was about 6% of monthly fiber cost. The Property Tax / Franchise/Row Recovery Fees 0.08% of monthly fiber cost. First, I thought it was federal law that Broadband can not be taxed by the State. Second, the USF amount stated was 16.5%, but in the past, when USF was applicable it was always only around 6%. Note: I do NOT buy IP Transit from this provider, nor Last mile Fiber. I am just buying a Point-to-Point Fiber Transport data link. So I consider this a wholesale component or infrastructure component, not an End User Internet circuit. So questions are 1) Am I exempt as a WISP. 2) Is there a standard government form I can provide to my uptream, to document my exemption (similar to use tax resell certificate) 3) Is CAF in effect now (Broadband providers paying into USF) and if so, what is the current % rate? 4) Does it matter how my upstream classifies themselves versus how I classify myself? (for example, if they've obtained CLEC status or not, or im not a CLEC). 5) Does it matter how I use the circuit? 6) Any specific FCC code to point to, that specifies this clearly? Figured Id ask, before I go searching through regulation code. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc Cell 301-300-8248 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] test
hi there Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] Re: Mikrotik on Multi-core
Sam, Thats quite impressive, to be able to support that many queues and filter rules. So apparently, those key services must be multi processor. That is good to learn. Eric, Regarding single core apps. It may not matter all that much if an app is single core, if it can use a unique core. My concern is if key single core apps default to sharing the same core. Faisal, A single 1.2G processor per port is probably fine for large packets and Full throughput. Im concerned on whether a single 1.2G core would be enough for full throughput with average small packet sizes or DDOS situations. With X86 processors, in the past we've shown it was not. But then again, the CCRs arent X86, and our past 4core X86 test machines, didnt have 36 procs to handle the load of other processes. Paul, Since we are on a budget, and need something to put in place quickly w/ SPFs, sounds like the 36core CCRs will solve our immediate need for Core BGP Router. It clearly will do way much better than the 1100 dual core that we temporarilly put in place, until we had time to order in a CCR. Whether the CCR will handle our growth plans for head end, thats yet to be seen. In our application we wont have nearly the number of rules per router as Sam's example, as we do filtering and bandwidth management at each tower, to spread out the load. Last Question: Long term, what Im most concerned about is how much throughput can be passed per gig port. Meaning how close to theoretical wirespeed. Because when calculating a providers cost per MB, its a big difference whether a router port can push the full GB versus say 50%. It can double a provider's cost per MB, requiring duplicating ones fiber infrastructure prematurely. Has anyone tested how small the average packet size can be and still achieve theoretical wirespeed, in a simplified configuration over a single port? 1Gbps FDX, can 90% of that be acheived with 384k avg packet size? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 5:28 PM Subject: [Spam] Re: [WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core Replaced an aging powerrouter 732 with a CCR-1036. Set up as a transparent bridge for traffic shaping. Passing 478M peak with 8200 interface bridge filter rules and 8000 queue tree entries, cpu utilization peaks at about 50 and all 36 CPUs are in use according to /system resource cpu print The 732 started giving us CPU limitations at about 240Mbps. The whole thing could be reworked so we didn't have so many filter rules or queue tree entries, but the original installation replaced a MAC based bandwidth limiter and they wanted to keep that setup. Other than some lockup issues we had on ROS versions before 6.7 we have been pretty happy with the box and for under $1k it is hard to beat. On 01/24/2014 03:53 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 1
[WISPA] Mikrotik on Multi-core
Hi everyone. Been awhile since Ive been here, so not sure if this is a redundant topic or not. Anyone got experience with Mikrotik on their newer Multi-Core platform, using as a Core Router for interconnecting multiple Gig backbone connections (w/ BGP, OSPF, Queues, Firewalls, VLAN tagging)? To be more specific Comparing Mikrotik's 36 core 1.2Ghz models to say a third party Quad core 3Ghz model. What do we need 36 cores for, when we got 11 eth ports? Are they even used by software? Is later Mikrotik Firmware allowing - multiple processors to handle a singe NIC port? - which Mikrotik software features are able to effectively spread accross to a unique processor or use multiple processors? Is 1.2Ghz enough? Do the embedded NICs in the 36core units pass full Gig capacity? (In past, we learned depending on which NIC and driver brand, a NIC could pass as low as only 30% of full capacity w/ large packets, where as a later generation PCIE w/ ATIO Intel could pass upward of 90% of full capacity w/ small packets.) Im asking because back in the day, there were many Linux services relating to routing that were written to be only single processor support. Because of this, it was important to have the highest speed Ghz processor possible, since some critical services (the bottleneck) would share only 1 primary processor, regardless of how many processors were in the router. In past experience specific to Mikrotiktik, I often ran into issues with added features (firewall rules, Queues, etc) drastically draining the processing power of a MT router slowing throughput way below the theoretical published port throughput. For example, can Queues or Firewalls spread multiple processors? Can these 36core units handle bandwdith management (Limiting or Queues) for high speed subscribers, such as 100mb and 200 mbps customers? In the GUI of v6.7, I dont see anything higher than 2mb or 10mb depending on location of parameter. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Can anyone serve Vail Colorado?
Can anyone serve Vail Colorado wirelessly? If interested, I need a reply today before end of business. I got a profitable event job for someone. reply to t...@rapiddsl.net Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc 301-300-8248 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down
I personally believe Genachowski was out of tune with the reality of the Broadband Industry, and Im not disappointed he's stepping down. But... the risk is always in the unknowns of who comes next. Its like being a small winner at a game show, and then being asked, do you want to take the minimal money or instead take whats inside the Question Mark mystery box? What I will say is... when ever someone new comes incharge, there is always more advocacy work to do than the day before. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Sean Heskett To: a...@afmug.com ; us...@wug.cc ; WISPAGeneral List Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:49 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC Chairman Genachowski to step down Just FYI...not sure if this is good, bad or ugly??? http://news.yahoo.com/fcc-chairman-genachowski-step-down-141103205--finance.html -- ___ 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] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?.
Thanks. I kind of did fall off the earth. My personal life got real ugly this year, so I had to refocus my time. But RapidDSL is still alive and doing well. I hope to get back to WISPA more in the Fall. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Steve Barnes To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?. Tom Good to see you on the list. I had thought you had fallen off the planet. I hope all is well. I miss your insights. Steve Barnes General Manager PCS-WIN / RC-WiFi From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:47 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?. Any WISPA members, WISPs or Contractors, serve Downtown Houston, TX? If so, I'd like to refer an exciting profitable job to you, for an event. (Originally, I was going to fly down and do it, using a 24Ghz link to a nearby building with Cogent Fiber. But unfortuantely I have a conflict I cant get out of, so my company will be unavailable to accept job) If interested, reply to me ASAP, and I'll disclose details. There is plenty of time before event date, but I could really use a reply today. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 301-515-7774 -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Houston TX WISP - looking for 50mb. Anyone?.
Any WISPA members, WISPs or Contractors, serve Downtown Houston, TX? If so, I'd like to refer an exciting profitable job to you, for an event. (Originally, I was going to fly down and do it, using a 24Ghz link to a nearby building with Cogent Fiber. But unfortuantely I have a conflict I cant get out of, so my company will be unavailable to accept job) If interested, reply to me ASAP, and I'll disclose details. There is plenty of time before event date, but I could really use a reply today. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 301-515-7774 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] UBNT AirFiber Radio Pics
Any way you look at it, the UBNT 24Ghz product is a game changer. Its bringing a price point, that will mass excellerate the adoption of 24Ghz use. At that price, there are 1000s of uses. Its very exciting. Its also a big bonus that it is MIMO, which should give it a good link budget, compared to the methods other technologies use to accommodate dual pol. What I dont like about it is that it uses to much spectrum and is to fast, which will cause parties to deploy faster speeds than they need, simply because they can, and cause more interference in urban areas, and reduce the number of links in an area. Often people incorrectly think that millimeter is like inteference free. What they forget is the low range is based on Rain fade, but when its not raining the signal goes very far, and reflections can reflect all over the place, even though narrow beamwidth. But there will still be a strong market for other products like SAF. For example, windloading and mounting. I jsut bought a SAF radio for that reason, where the 1ft dish option was preferred. SAF also has 256QAM support, quite a bit more efficient than UBNT's 64QAM limit, allowing high speed in smaller channels, allowing more radios to be colocated at a single site. I think UBNT's marketing is their typical overstated marketing.. Just like AIRMAX 5.8 where they promote as 300mb, when in reallity Dual Pol 20Mhz channels, the common size that can be used, yields more like between 40mb and 80mb depending on link budget and noise floor. So in doing apples to apples comparisons, its important to take that into consideration. For example, a 13mile link just isn't going to happen in my rain zone, but might be doable in the desert. With 2ft dishes, I dare not go over 2-1/4 miles, and still prefer under 1.5m. I believe the UBNT 24 product will also put a hurting on the 60Ghz market. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
[WISPA] Licensed 1ft dish?
Are both 18Ghz and 11Ghz limited to minimum 2ft dish size? Just wondering if 1ft was allowed? I know, some might ask "why"? Because its for a really short link (200 ft) that has to be 350mb+ FDX, but dont want to use 60G millimeterwave, because the viable mounting options are not stable enough to prevent sway and safely reliably support that tight of a narrow beamwidth. I'm pretty sure, I'll end up doing this in 23G, which allows 1ft dish, (similar beamwidth to 11G with 2ft). But just wanted to double check rules for 18 and 11. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck Hogg To: victo...@stlbroadband.com ; WISPA General List Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages I don't think you understand. A GFCI outlet is a "mechanical" device. You can't reboot it. Regards, Chuck On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Victoria Proffer wrote: Can you set it on an auto-ping? Victoria Proffer STLWiMAX, LLC 314-974-5600 From: Brian Webster [mailto:bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:02 AM To: victo...@stlbroadband.com; 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages The remote reboot power strip does nothing for you if the GFCI outlet or breaker has tripped, that needs to be reset unless it’s an auto reset device. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Victoria Proffer Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:40 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages Is there a remote power strip that can be activated by a cell phone? i.e. strip pstn > my computer Victoria Proffer STLWiMAX, LLC 314-974-5600 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Ghering Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 8:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages We don't use them at towers, but I have here at home auto resetting GFCI outlets for my Saltwater reef tank. Got them from Home Depot.. They reset automatically after a few mins.. Ryan On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote: You have to have GFCI outlets indoors? I've never heard of that regulation before. A few thoughts come to mind: * Battery backup with 2 or so hours of run time along with a remote page for a power outage. Doesn't prevent you from having to dispatch but it keeps you from having an outage. * Re-check code? I don't understand why you need a GFCI outlet inside your shack.You don't have a sink or other water nearby. I don't have GFCI outlets in my office. Maybe I'm missing something here. If you are mounting an outdoor NEMA box with your equipment and just plugging into a GFCI then maybe you can figure out some way to get a hardwire into the box rather than plugging into an outside GFCI? On 3/16/12 9:04 AM, Troy Settle wrote: > Ok, so to keep to code, we have a GFCI outlet for most of our towers. > One of them tripped last night, causing me to have to put on some 80 > miles just to push a button (yes, it could have been much worse). > > Is there anything to prevent stupid outages like this from happening > without violating code? > > Thanks, > > -- > > Troy Settle, Network Administrator > > The Wired Road Authority > > 1117 E. Stuart Dr. > > Galax, VA 24333 > > (276) 238-0049 (office) > > (276) 237-3890 (cell) > > tset...@thewiredroad.net > > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- Ryan Ghering Network Operations - Plains.Net Office: 970-848-0475 - Cell: 970-630-1879 ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless -- ___ 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] Preventing stupid outages
Troy, Related to GFI We've removed all GFIs from our implemntations for this reason. We try to redesign our isntall plan to a way that code wont require the GFIs. As far as Dragonwave versus Mikrotik, one rebooting and not the other. The Dragonwave draws more current than the Mikrotik to operate, so its not surprising, if a short brownout spike occurred that the power flowing was enough to keep the mikrotik running, but not the Dragonwave. One way to help with that is to have a overspec'd UPS. Running a UPS at 44%, power storage capacity in its capacitor's will be less sufficient to cover for power drops, than if the UPS was run at a lower load. Another way to deal with it is to modify the setup to a Dual realtime power feed situation, so better chance one of teh two systems will deliver power, before a switch to battery, or if a breaker trips on one of the power circuits. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Troy Settle To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages Next stupid outage at a different site. Specs: Generac 8KW generator Automatic Transfer Switch APC 450 rack mount UPS Mikrotik RB1200 Mikrotik RB435 (3x 802.11n sectors) Dragonwave Compact Horizon #1 Dragonwave Compact Horizon #2 (I don't know how many horses, chickens, goats, pigs, and other critters are onsite, but I don't think they're an issue). Total load on the UPS is at 44%, estimated run is 25 minutes (long enough for the generator and switch to do their thing). Radios grounded to the tower, tower grounded and bonded to the shack. Shack has two rods (panel -> Rod -> Rod -> Generator). Everything inside is bonded as well, including the drain wires on all the Cat-5. Yesterday, the Dragonwaves rebooted several times during the storm, but neither RB lost power even once. Any guesses? I'm sleeping on it over the weekend, but probably need to get it figured out before too many more storms come over the mountains. Thanks, -Troy From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Troy Settle Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 9:05 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Preventing stupid outages Ok, so to keep to code, we have a GFCI outlet for most of our towers. One of them tripped last night, causing me to have to put on some 80 miles just to push a button (yes, it could have been much worse). Is there anything to prevent stupid outages like this from happening without violating code? Thanks, -- Troy Settle, Network Administrator The Wired Road Authority 1117 E. Stuart Dr. Galax, VA 24333 (276) 238-0049 (office) (276) 237-3890 (cell) tset...@thewiredroad.net -- ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing
yeah, that's an excellent example, of what I was getting at... A transaction at of that sort, (low antenna count and low price) wouldn't spark a alot of interest, or atleast not at a low cost per antenna, waiving fees. Heck, last time I place an antenna upgrade, the app touched like 10 different people as it went from stage to stage. The cost to a tower company to accept a small # antenna app is almost as high as accepting an order for many antennas. Ther are many tower Cos that are happy accepting 1 antenna apps, but they also charge $500 per antenna in those cases, because there is a minmum transaction level to make it worth while to process the order, and in most cases could get 5 for the same price.. They could always help out as a good gesture, good neighbor, charity type thing, but then again some would say, "what about the liabilty", or "the reason we charge the big bucks is that our towers are build stronger to surive the tornados. Why give away our value?" One of the mistakes I've made in the past is, I represented "Help me, I wont be a pain on your resources, All I need is 1U of space, all I need is help for a month, can you help me out on the price?" No sales rep cares about that. To get help I have to represent, "I'm ready to commit to a five year contract, I'll need a lot of resources from you, I need 6 antennas today, and I expect to add 3 times that by the time I'm complete, if you give me a good price today". But, that said, I hear you. It sucks most for the rural end user. The one that has to look at the 300ft tower in their back yard everyday, but still cant get broadband, because of the tower cost.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: CBB - Jay Fuller To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing Honestly, what i'd need to put up on this crown tower is three radios ; one as a backhaul, a 5.7 omni and a 900 mhz omni. Wouldn't need it if the tornado hadn't destroyed the downtown tower site we were on (and the owners weren't taking forever to rebuild it) can't see the justification happening... we've got everyone moved to a different tower except for four people - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing I dont doubt the claims made, but Our experience with Crown has been very positive. I'd argue probably easiest of all, after all things considered, reviewing our last 10 years as a WISP and working with tower companies. Going into these type agreements, meaning with any national tower company, its important to recognize that tower reps are just like any other large dollar large volume leasor/landlord, where there are managers and lawyers on staff, that look at the letter of the law and every minute detail in their contracts, and make decissions from a far as a NON-Emotionally-attached apponent. They represent their interests, not yours. Most of the initial template contracts are written to be one sided in favor of the tower leasor, and are clear about the tower company's remedies in cases of a Leasee's default, and not so clear on what if any remedies are availale to the leasee in cases of Leasor's breach. That is unless you've been fortunate enough to get the terms changed to be more favorable to you, before you signed them. "terms" (meaning length of time commitment) specifically is a common issue of challenge, after a falling out occurs. Anytime something evolves to a legal battle, its likely going to evolve to a situation that would be considered "unfortunate" or "ugly" for all parties involved. Its the equivellent of a "divorce" for business.. I'd also argue that Tower companies are probably still taking a beating financially right now. I'm sure the Clearwire failures have led to large scale revenue loss nationwide. And I'm sure BTOP/BIP programs of the past 2 years weren't helping much, encouraging wireless companies to build their own towers, instead of entering into rental type "lease" agreement for colo space. The tower consolidators probably paid well to aquire the other tower companies. There are big dollars at stake, and they need to target big revenue to get their ROI.. At the end of the day, a leasor has to say "why do I want to help this guy, what's in it for me?". "If this isn't going to be one of my customers, why shouldn't I rake every last penny out of them that I can?" "Even if it seems unethical or unsympathetic, does
Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing
ve. The advise that I can recommend is 1) Identify the person that is capable of helping you. Meaning the one with the most invested interest to want to help you. 2) Look for an alternate way to address the problem, that isn't banking heads with the leasor. (For example, if the lessor's goal is to get more money, try to get something in return for that that would be worthwhile for you to spend that additional money. Maybe more antenna or Freq bands for that higher price. That would be more beneficial than paying more per antenna. In other word, if the goal may be to get more money, they might not care how they accomplish it, and may be open to suggestions) 3) You'll be more likely to get what you want if the end result is staying a customer of theirs, as there is a cost to them for every decission, and they have a better chance to cost justify a favor, it they can make back their money over time from you. 4) Dont go over your primary contact's heads, unless you are truly convinced that that party is a big part of the problem. If so, my guess is that higher up supervisors probably would help and would want to know about it, if the primary contact really was not doing their job appropriately. 5) If the terms of a transaction are not acceptable to you, DONT DO THE TRANSACTION. Under stand that for that property, there may just not be a match. There is a lot of competition out there, and there are likely other tower leasors around to consider instead. Moving towers, isn't always as expensive and disruptive as one might think. 6) The most important part in establishing a good vendor, is being able to have meaningful dialogue between you and your rep, to negotiate, where both parties can hear each other, and look for accomplishing "mutually beneficial". If a vendor does not provide that for you, then you need to change reps or look elsewhere. (You also need to be able to provide that). 7) If you are moving in the direction where you likely wont be a colocation customer at that site, try and make it that that decission was made by the landlord. Meaning, Create the perception that you'd like to be there at X specified terms. So you give the rep a chance to have your business. You are then the good guy. Should they then turn that down, and not want to lease to you, then it is on them, that they lost your business. (They surely cant hold you responsible for them turning away your business). In other words, always propose a resolution, or the solution that would work for you, for their consideration. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: bret clark To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing We have good relationships with the local Crown rep people who have been good to work with, so no horror stories, but the start up fees to get on one of their towers is just ridiculous..I'm not an AT&T or Verizon with a gazillion $$$. I would probably do a lot more business with Crown, but only had 2 arms and 2 legs and they are long gone! On 3/11/2012 10:26 AM, Chuck Hogg wrote: I was told there would be a change at WISPALOOZA...after 6 weeks of negotiations, we walked away. A friend of mine decommissioned a Crown site he was on. They removed everything. Some how a cable hanger was still there. Crown is fighting with them to get them to pay back rent for that one cable hanger. The claim was $14,000 in back rent and $4,000 to remove the cable hanger. Each month that $14k increases. Regards, Chuck On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:05 PM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote: Looked at a Crown tower today - and remembered the horror stories. Not interested unless there is a real change. - Original Message - From: Ralph To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 9:13 PM Subject: [WISPA] New Crown Castle Nightmare Developing I wish I could say nice things… I wish I could say nice things. But Mama told me that if I can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all. I have a pretty good Crown Castle horror story developing. I will be glad to share the details if things do not get ironed out, and quickly. I will say that if you are considering it, do not get into a contract with them. They still think we are all Cell Carriers or Clearwire! If the representative from the “Kinder, Gentler, WISPA member Crown Castle” happens to be listening, I think he needs to reply to me off list! Ralph Brightlan.net
Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 issue
Ive found the problem usually to be a failing TLink, and the necessary solution to usually be "replace the TLink with a new Tlink" I'm never quick to replace a Tlink with another brand, if the Tlink has enough capacity for the purpose of the link. With TLinks, I have solid indicators when a radio is operating properly or not. Thats important. With other brands, (like UBNT), its sometimes harder to know for sure whether a link is working optimally, from the perspective of the end user's throughput. Not to mention, TLinks great for legal 5.4 and 5.3. A couple things to check I've seen two other things cause the same symptom... 1) The power supply going bad. Fixed by replacing power supply. 2) Out of alignment antenna. If the antenna gets severally out of alignment, for example if the radio is dangling towards the roof because the mast got knocked over or pulled out of the wall brick in high winds, and the link needs to struggle to stay associated, there can be a huge amount of ARQ retransmissions, and it can over tax the software, and evenually the software crashes. I dont know why, I'm not their programmer. Maybe its some sort of exceed buffer type of thing. In some cases it will get bad enough where the RF communicates, but one side of the link will not pass traffic through it, meanting between the wired Ethernet and RF. The quick fix is to reboot either side. Because the RF is up, its also possible to remotely reboot the CPE or AP side. And even oif the CPE is the failed unit, rebooting the AP will fix the CPE. I dont know why it occurs, but it does. When these symptoms exist, often when I do Sysinfo, it only shows a small bit of info, and then hangs. So in summary, before calling a equipment bad, visually verify the equipment is still properly mounted. Please note these symptoms are rare to occur, and do not occur on non-defective Tlinks that are properly mounted, with proper link budgets. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 8:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 issue > Planning to order something in the morning. This is our primary link. > I have to keep it going. > > On 3/4/2012 7:10 PM, Jerry Richardson wrote: >> That was the symptom right before the master died. >> >> Put in a rocket5 and was done with it. >> >> Jerry Richardson >> Sent Mobile >> >> On Mar 4, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Scott Reed wrote: >> >>> I have a pair of TL45 that do a<2 mile link. At peak times we are >>> moving 35Mbps across the link. Randomly the MU and or RU will have >>> issues. First indication is high latency across the link. Logging into >>> the units and doing a sysinfo will generally show the first two lines or >>> so and then after a pause display failed. >>> Any idea what we need to do to stabilize this link? >>> >>> Hardware Version 5055 >>> Firmware Version 2p0r2D08072301 >>> System Up Time 01:51:08 >>> >>> -- >>> Scott Reed >>> Owner >>> NewWays Networking, LLC >>> Wireless Networking >>> Network Design, Installation and Administration >>> >>> >>> >>> Mikrotik Advanced Certified >>> >>> www.nwwnet.net >>> (765) 855-1060 >>> (765) 439-4253 >>> (855) 231-6239 >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Wireless mailing list >>> Wireless@wispa.org >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> ___ >> Wireless mailing list >> Wireless@wispa.org >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> >> - >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4850 - Release Date: 03/04/12 >> >> > > -- > Scott Reed > Owner > NewWays Networking, LLC > Wireless Networking > Network Design, Installation and Administration > > > > Mikrotik Advanced Certified > > www.nwwnet.net > (765) 855-1060 > (765) 439-4253 > (855) 231-6239 > > > ___ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless ___ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] UBNT
All the UBNT radios can perform at about the same speed. (assumming they all have the proper link budget for antenna size, and ofcourse understanding 1x1 models are half of 2x2 models). The bigger differenciaters are mechanical, meaning mounting, shileding, cabling, etc. 1) Can the radio mount on strong 2-3/8" mast, or just limited to less than 2" which usually ends up being 1-1/4" mast. 2) Does mounting have a single point of failure? Example comparing smaller Nanobridges (21db) that have only one Ubolt, versus larger Nanobrodges (25db)that have Dual Ubolt. 3) Is cat5 cabling easy and quick to remove or visible, either for verifying health of connection, on roof maintenance, or removal/swap? 4) Is CAT5 securable? For example, the Bullets itself cant really be mounted vertically, without risking crushing case, other than maybe with duct tape :-) If mounting to an Omni, the omni is what gets mounted, and the mount type must be offset enough for bullet clears the mast. Most often Bullets are just mounted direct to the back of panel direct to N connector. The side effect of that is the cat5 connection is extending back out into the open air. Where do you secure the CAT5? A mast may not exist behind the bullet. So the CAT5 just flapps around in the wind, which can weaken CAT5 connections over time. Obviously the CAT5 will get looped around and fastened to the mast eventually, but there is more cable length left unsecured close to teh bellet's connection. Compare that to a rocket, Nanobridge, or Nanostation, where the CAt5 cable shoots stright down directly to the direction of the Mast. This allows cable to be secured with the least amount of strain on the cable from high winds. With bullet if Condensation allows moisure in, where does it drip, based onthe orientation of the Bullet? Compare that to a rocket. We use bullets alot, and I'm not saying they are not adequate, I'm just saying, for critiical links, these little differences make big differences in uptime reliabilty over time. One maintenance trip to an easilly accessible radio is probably more than the cost to upgrade to the higher grade solution. If you wave setup equipment fees, but bill by the hour for house visits thereafter, use the Bullet :-) We used to use Bullet alot because it was single pol. But now that the command exists to disable a pol on the new rockets, we are starting to use Rockets instead. Everything has a trade off. We use the Nanobridge25 dishs most commonly. We hate the CAT5 access for those radios and that it doesn;t fit 2-3/8" mast, but its a trade off we live with to get low price, tight beamwidth w/ good front to back isolation, enough gain for most anything (we can always turn tx power ain down for short links) shooting for high modulation everywhere, small cosmetic look, and double Ubolt for more secured mounting. The comparison I like to make is the Nanobridge25 to the Rocket in an ARQ inclosure. Its the difference between $80 and $225. When it really matters, I'll usually use the ARQ solution, its a bit better. But for most subscriber situations, the Nanobridge is plenty good enough. Almost always, because the Nanobridge only support 2" mast, I have to additionally buy a pole to pole mount, to mount a 1-1/2" pole to the pre-existing 2-3/8" mast to be able to mount the Nano, which is a pain in the neck and more uglier. But even then, the pole to pole mount only costs me $30, and I'm still half the cost of the ARQ solution. When it really matters, and I have a bit more distance and flexibilty cosmetically wise, I'll just use the UBNT 29 dish and Rocket, which is only a $260 solution. The power bridge is really pretty. And its worth paying the higher $300 price tag, if you want it to look pretty, and can survive with only a 2" mount bracket, or dont mind buying an additional pole to pole mount to make it less pretty.. It also allows you to just take it out of the box and install, without the quick fabrication necessary with the ARC/Rocket solution. Allthough I still prefer the ARQ/Rocket solution over powerbridge. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT What's the difference in performance between a powerbridge and and airbridge on a 2mile 20MB link. Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe AS Technologies Ltd Tel. 234(0)8023258027 -- This e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged, proprietary and/or confidential information. Any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachments for any purposes that have not been specifically authorized by the sender is strictly p
Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear
We did an evaluation of Axxelera a number of years back, and we felt it was a pretty hot product, and more affordable than some of the alternatives.. (But then Ubiquiti came out with Dirt cheap MIMO) Axxelera Rep, Are you saying Axxelera now has a MIMO prioduct, that supports either MAtric A and B? When looking at Axxelera previously (prior to mimo), I noticed the 15Mhz channel size (Not quite the 20Mhz we desired most, but better than 10Mhz trends of Wimax or First generation OFDM Canopy) What channel size/width is Axxelera's MIMO products? Is the MIMO line still using true TDD constant carrier APs, or instead like the many other just using wifi chipsets that dont constantly transmit? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Freylekhman, Alex" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear > Gino, > In regards to the 90mbps - 2x2 mimo can either be set as matrix A or B, > there is a decision to be made if you go after distance or capacity. > > > > Aleksander Freylekhman > Sales Director, North America > Axxcelera Broadband Wireless > a Moseley Company > p: (804) 864-4125 > m: (440) 220-2192 > afreylekh...@axxcelera.com > www.axxcelera.com > > > > -Original Message- > From: Gino Villarini [mailto:g...@aeronetpr.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 3:17 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear > > Yikes, seem ages you haven't looked at Canopy, Classic Aps do 14 Mbps, new > ones 45 Mbps, next one (Q2 2012) 90 Mbps > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > 787.273.4143 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:40 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear > > A contact at the FCC told me years ago that it meant you can not do /new/ > installs of the old DFS gear. Anyone have a FCC rep saying something > different? > > Why not Canopy? $2000 AP's, $400 CPE and 3~4mbit. I am sure that has came > down since my first Canopy pack back in the pre-nehalm(sp) days. > > Looking at Axxcelera. Might be in the same vein and Canopy. Anyone with > experience that wants to share? I do not want to just buy a stop gap > product that will work till Ubnt get their stuff ready. > This is going to be direction we head in once we find gear. > > Jeromie > ___ > 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] DFS2 gear
No question that Canopy stayed in the PtMP game longer, to go beyond the 10mb barrier, with advantage line and OFDM.. But to keep it real At a typical Trango Link Budget / Max distance, inserting a legacy Canopy w/ its inferior small antenna size and weaker link budget, Canopy would be lucky to get 5mbps, if it could even associate in our noise floor. How quickly its forgotten, the Canopy 8db AP integ antenna, and Trango's 14db-18db AP integ antenna, gaining Trango the winning link budget, even after considering the C/I. It brings back memories of the past.. The every day, CAnopy versus Trango thread :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeromie Reeves" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear > Yup, Its been 10 years since I used it in my wisp. When the next line > came out it did no better then Atheros based radios in my environment > and cost 5x as much to deploy. I do not have a business rich > environment, and even if I did, they do not like $500 installs and > $100/mo. This makes my primary target residential users. Ubnt delivers > now, just not in 5.4-5.7 and I have pressure > to expand as well as have room to move around a competitor who has 5.4 > links now but wants to replace them with 5.8. There is no (or very > little) 5.8 room due to how and where both of our towers sit. > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:17 AM, Gino Villarini > wrote: >> Yikes, seem ages you haven't looked at Canopy, Classic Aps do 14 Mbps, >> new ones 45 Mbps, next one (Q2 2012) 90 Mbps >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> 787.273.4143 >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves >> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:40 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear >> >> A contact at the FCC told me years ago that it meant you can not do /new/ >> installs of the old DFS gear. Anyone have a FCC rep saying something >> different? >> >> Why not Canopy? $2000 AP's, $400 CPE and 3~4mbit. I am sure that has came >> down since my first Canopy pack back in the pre-nehalm(sp) days. >> >> Looking at Axxcelera. Might be in the same vein and Canopy. Anyone with >> experience that wants to share? I do not want to just buy a stop gap >> product that will work till Ubnt get their stuff ready. >> This is going to be direction we head in once we find gear. >> >> Jeromie >> ___ >> 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] DFS2 gear
Yes, according to FCC rules, DFS2 must be used for new installs. But, if you have a grandfathered "SITE", you are allowed to repair that site with a replacement radio, and accordingly its legal for the manufacturer to sell it for that purpose.. (I'd argue manufacturering laws might require keeping replacement parts available). As far as installing new CPE locations on pre-existing 5830 sectors? According to the rules its not allowed. But then again, how would anyone know what was pre-existing? The secondary market for legacy 5.3gear is still alive and well, because of that factor.. The reality is that no one cares, because the problem will naturally fix itself with time, and FCC has better things to do than harrass people for no reason. The fact is... putting up legacy 5.3G isn't going to hurt or interfere with anyone, if in small scale, and not worth anyone's time to determine what was or wasn't pre-existing, if no harm is being done. At the same time, no manufacturer is going to continue making new batches of product that has become obsolete. No US WISP is going to standardize on a legacy products anymore in large scale. The world is migrating to requiring faster speeds. The ROI for newly putting up old obsolete sectors, is not high. Most WISPs are going to want to put up "new" sites/sectors with gear that has some growth potential, and meet's today's broadband demands, to maximize their ROI. My point is, there really isn't a "long term" problem here. Allthough, in the short term, there may be some frustrating choices to make. All I know is, I'm gonna keep trying to get as much life out of my 5830s as long as I can, because they simply work headache free. (although admittedly, its getting harder where there is signficant colo costs, due to the lower CPE/AP ratiothat the market now requires) The good thing about the 5830, is that it is a "legally certified" radio of its day, so if operating at a grandfathered site for 5.3G, its got a sticker that says its legal.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeromie Reeves" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear >A contact at the FCC told me years ago that it meant you can not do > /new/ installs of the old DFS gear. Anyone have a FCC rep saying > something different? > > Why not Canopy? $2000 AP's, $400 CPE and 3~4mbit. I am sure that has > came down since my first Canopy pack back in the pre-nehalm(sp) days. > > Looking at Axxcelera. Might be in the same vein and Canopy. Anyone > with experience that wants to share? I do not want to just > buy a stop gap product that will work till Ubnt get their stuff ready. > This is going to be direction we head in once we find gear. > > Jeromie > ___ > 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] DFS2 gear
The 5830's shipping firmwares have 5.3Ghz support removed from the radio, because the radio platform does not support DFS of any kind, and is not legally usable in the USA on 5.3Ghz anymore, unless to repair a pre-existing site that was grandfathered, and originally installed prior to the rule change. Older Firmwares supports 5.3G, and can be applied for repairing grandfathered sites, or for use Internationally. The 5830 was (still is) a great product, but its chipset was designed prior to DFS days, so its for 5.8G now, for requirements up to 10mb HDX. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeromie Reeves" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] DFS2 gear > The Trango site says "For export only. Not for U.S.A." on the 5.3 > gear. This would indicate it has DFS but not DFS2. Am I looking at the > wrong product? > > http://www.trangobroadband.com/wireless-products/multipoint-broadband-access/Access5830-System.aspx > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Josh Luthman > wrote: >> Trango 5830 >> >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jeromie Reeves >> wrote: >>> Is there anything out there that is DFS2 certified for PtMP ? I know >>> of Canopy and (someday) Ubnt. Everything else >>> I know if is hi-cap PtP but all my links are to long for those. >>> >>> Jeromie Reeves >>> ___ >>> 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] painting an antenna
Quick answer... "stix" primer from Lowes A couple tips on Painting You must use non-metalic non-carbon paint, to avoid RF loss. As well, you must use a paint that bonds properly to your specific material Steel, Aluminum, Plastic, ABS. There are many types of plastics, and they each have their own chemical requirements for proper paint type for bonding. Many paint types used or recommended by radio manufacturer are paids for high production factory applications, and not typically sold in small quantity and often require sprayers. The easiest way to solve the problem is to use a "Primer". If you use the proper primer, then you have the option to use a wide varierty of inexpensive over the counter paints with worry free bonding. " Stix" is an excellent choice for Primer. Its sold at Lowes, inexpensive, and can be used over metal and most plastics, such as those used most commonly for Antenna radomes. After one coat of Stix, you can then paint over it with standard exterior household latex paint. We use Valspar Duramax Exterior Latex, with FLAT finish, also sold at Lowes. (You still need to make sure paint is non-metallic/non-carbon, which the Valspar is.) We prefer Flat instead of Gloss paints because, when an antenna is high on a roof, glossy paint will reflect the sun more, and make the antenna look like a bright light, and stand out like a sore thumb. Primers are also easy. You'll will only need one coat of paint over the primer. The paint should be applied over the primer before the primer is fully dry, for optimal bond. (obviously not when the primer is still wet.). Generally, paint can go on within 30min after primer applied. Using hardware store stock paint, allows you to save a bunch compared to specialty paint stores. For example, a common Sherman Williams or McCormick paint design for Plastic without a primer could easilly cost $150-$200 a can, where as a gallon of ValSpar is $30, and Stix about $20. What happens if you dont use a good primer, and just paint household paint on Plastic? Well, within 6 months, the paint will be peeling off everywhere and make a big mess. If you have a good place to paint in advance, sure there are many good choices for acrylics, enamels, or oil based. But using water based Latex makes for easy clean up, and easy re-painting if ever needed, which works well for field painting. Dont get confused by all the different paint types, that cobine types, for example acrylic latex, or acrylic enamel, etc. It doesn't really matter, when painting over Stix. As long as using the good primer, Latex should work fine. The other thing is, painting over a pre-existing paint with the wrong type can cause negative chemical reactions, and also cause poor bonding, or peel after words. The solution to that is to use the "Stix" primer. It can be painted over most factory paints without worry, and allows most paints to be painted over the Stix. The secret is the Primer, not the paint.. I'm not saying that Stix is the best, but I know Stix is non metalic and non carbon and meets the requirements for antenna painting. Many Primer manufacturers do not like to disclose what their primer is made of because its their secret competitive recipe, so its hard to get out of the manufacturers whether it is metalic or carbon based or the loss it could have to RF. Another note, Paint looks a different color indoor than it does outdoors. I'll mix it to look light, and then outside it will look to dark. So make it lighter than you think you should. Also note, its much easier to make paint darker, than it is to make it lighter. So if you make it to dark, it takes a lot of paint added back to lighten it up. As for color choice... I've had little luck painting to match the sky. The reason is the color of the sky changes depending on the time of day and the weather. If trying to match the sky, use a lite (almost white) sky blue. I prefer to match antenna paint to the same color as the building it is mounted to, because a perfect match can be obtained, so it blends in with the building, and does not stand out. Anythign a different color than the building will draw the eye's attention to it. Painting to the sky color only makes the antenna look transparent 25% of the day, when it matches the sky, and the rest of the day when it doesn't, it stands out. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jim Patient To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 2:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] painting an antenna Krylon Fusion but not red, brown, or black. Old hillbilly test is to paint a business card, let it dry, and microwave it. If it gets hot don't use it. Jim From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.o
Re: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for "unsubsidized competitor"
Seems like interesting idea. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Fred Goldstein" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for "unsubsidized competitor" > At 2/16/2012 07:01 PM, Kevin Sullivan wrote: >>I don't know enough about the CLEC stuff to say for sure, but that sounds >>interesting. Would that let you get local DID's for VoIP? > > Yes. Numbers are given to CLECs, so you'd create a CLEC or team up > with an existing CLEC that doesn't yet serve your area, and then > could pull phone number blocks from NANPA. > >>Kevin >>- Original Message - >>From: "Fred R. Goldstein" >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:57 PM >>Subject: [WISPA] Low-cost CLEC market entry approach for "unsubsidized >>competitor" >> >> >> > The current FCC rules per November's CAF order allow ILECs to be >> > subsidized to provide "broadband" unless there is an "unsubsidized >> > competitor" who provides both voice and data service. Jack Unger has >> > written an excellent petition to the FCC to change that to allow it >> > to be "unsubsidized competition", wherein the data provider needn't >> > be the voice provider. But there's no guarantee that the FCC >> > (currently down to three seated Commissioners) will take such action. >> > >> > A WISP can provide the needed voice service via VoIP. It need not be >> > a certificated CLEC. However, to get the VoIP service and local >> > numbers, it still needs a CLEC with a connection to (at minimum) the >> > tandem switch serving its area. In some rural areas, this might not >> > be available. So the WISP might need to create a CLEC, or at least >> > get one to serve its area. >> > >> > While the traditional approach to starting a CLEC requires a >> > "switch", that rather costly item, which a lot of ISPs don't want to >> > have to manage, can be finessed by using a remote gateway. At least >> > one CLEC I'm working with offers a remote "rent a call agent" >> > service, where there Class 4/5 call agent, which is equipped with >> > Signaling System 7 (a big expense), can serve gateways anywhere, >> > passing signaling (H.248) across the Internet or, ideally, a VPN. So >> > the rural CLEC just has a media gateway and SBC, and orders trunks >> > into the local central office. The VoIP side of the gateway then >> > feeds the subscribers. >> > >> > I'm trying to assess whether it's worth anyone's pursuing to set this >> > up as an offering for WISPs. Does anyone see a market for this type >> > of service? Would it help anyone meet the "unsubsidized competitor" >> > requirement? Thanks... > > -- > Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > > 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] Future of Wifi Offloading WAS: Ericsson is buyingBelAir, betting on Wi-Fi
at one specific street corner. It was probably the most owrthless expendature and use of public money. The outcome is nobody will use the network, and they wont repeat the model wide scale, unless grant funds require spending the money. The ONLY Possible benefit might be that on occasion, once or twice a year tops, they close the streets for a city day where vendors setup booths on the street for a mini festaville. Its possible that on those days, the public MIGHT occasionally connect. Why they'd use their wifi and not their cellular broadband, I'd wonder. I'm just not scared. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeremy L. Gaddis" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:14 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Future of Wifi Offloading WAS: Ericsson is buyingBelAir, betting on Wi-Fi > On Jan 26, 2012, at 11:22 PM, John Scrivner wrote: >> Here are my predictions based partly upon the acquisitions we have >> seen of Atheros by Qualcomm and now this latest play into Wifi by >> otherwise generally licensed zealots of the mobile world: > > [snip] > >> I predict we'll see all this come to pass by 2017-18. We'll see how >> clear my crystal ball is in a few years. I hope you guys will remember >> this then and be sure to pull it up and make fun of me for being so >> far offor not!:-) > > I predict you'll see it well before that. > > Someone else in the thread mentioned Comcast and Time Warner planning to > roll out thousands of access points. Remember that both of these companies > are also in the cellular game now. > > What's (one of) the biggest problem(s) cellular carriers are facing right > now? The explosion in data traffic. > > They *need* to offload as much data traffic off of their networks as they > can. They simply cannot handle the projected long-term growth in data > traffic. > > Enter 802.11u. > > -- > Jeremy L. Gaddise: jer...@as54225.net > Network Engineerm: +1.812.865.0581 > > > > > > 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] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi
That makes sense. Well stated Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi At 2/1/2012 12:28 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Earthlink has established quite the fiber and CLEC footprint. Thats an interesting topic Really? So they aren't primarilly still just marketing and reselling off other CLEC's infrastructure, like they used to? I'm aware of the Atlanta project, where Earthlink was gonna do Fiber and CLEC stuff, but not aware of progress since then, or if they expanded to new markets. The dream of owning the whole network is still far off for most Earthink types. Sure they can buy Fiber transport and peer like anyone else, heck Fiber backbones are almost as cheap as buying Wireless backhaul in many markets the last year or two. The trend is buy Darkfiber, Gig-E or 10G fiber for transport and interconnect to the data center, and call yourself an ISP. But then there is still the last mile, which is still mostly copper, that has to be bought wholesale from someone, or a risky model if one tries to build their own at the COs this late into the game. Because of that, I had still visioned Earthlink as a "reseller". Earthlink has bought up a number of CLECs, making them one of the larger facilities-based CLECs. This is indeed quite a change from their origins as a consumer-oriented ISP. Now they are selling large-ticket business accounts. It was probably a smart move, since wireline ISPs have had a hard time of it, what with the general loss of common carriage and the ILECs' ridiculously high Special Access rates. As a CLEC, though, they can at least get some DS1 loops at lower (UNE) prices, and run their own DSL over short loops. Plus they get the regular CLEC product offerings. The cable MSOs are, in general, run by real business people who look at real profit potential. This is in contrast to telcos, for whom profit is merely an assumption, an entitlement to be granted while they pursue their goals of power, control, and monopoly. Since cablecos have no entitlement of profit, no USF, they don't invest where it doesn't make sense. WiFi, however, is chump change. They clamp an access point onto the messenger, tap into the DOCSIS for upstream, and they cover a few hundred feet of urban radius. This is much cheaper than a mobile network, practically a rounding error in their finances. Clearwire was a loser. SpectrumCo turned out to be profitable in resale, not as an operating entity. They can experiment with WiFi on a small scale, though, and see what kind of business potential it has. Because it's their own backhaul, the OpEx is minimal. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -- 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] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi
> Earthlink has established quite the fiber and CLEC footprint. Thats an interesting topic Really? So they aren't primarilly still just marketing and reselling off other CLEC's infrastructure, like they used to? I'm aware of the Atlanta project, where Earthlink was gonna do Fiber and CLEC stuff, but not aware of progress since then, or if they expanded to new markets. The dream of owning the whole network is still far off for most Earthink types. Sure they can buy Fiber transport and peer like anyone else, heck Fiber backbones are almost as cheap as buying Wireless backhaul in many markets the last year or two. The trend is buy Darkfiber, Gig-E or 10G fiber for transport and interconnect to the data center, and call yourself an ISP. But then there is still the last mile, which is still mostly copper, that has to be bought wholesale from someone, or a risky model if one tries to build their own at the COs this late into the game. Because of that, I had still visioned Earthlink as a "reseller". Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi It's the cable co's fault they never got anything out of the different cellular ventures... they just didn't market it. Cometa who? :-) Clearwire isn't going anywhere. Earthlink has established quite the fiber and CLEC footprint. They'll get a much better ROI on WIFI than expanding cable's footprint. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 2/1/2012 10:25 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote: Agreed. But I question the reasons, because there are more than one factor leading their interest. Some of it is vendor pressure. Some of it Egos sore from past failed attempts. For example, the big Cable Cos were major investors in Clearwire (and maybe other WImax alliances), and had to pull out without a ROI. Human phychy typical responses are either 1) that didn't wotk, forget that market, or 2) I'll show them (the world), we'll just do it ourselves and be in control of our investment, or 3) Of you fall off the horse, get back on and try a again, except more out of pride than good judgement. Or maybe its just fear of a competitor being one up?.Verizon/ATT has the bundle and we dont, shouldn't we be competing with the Jones? Or, some guy working from his basement can do this, surely we should be able to Lets explore it. I'd find it hard to believe that the primary justification would be, "we crunched the numbers and did some preliminary engineering, and this is one super exicting big profit venture." Heck, I honestly can say, if I were the President of Time Warner or Comcast, and some bozo pitched the the board to start a 10,000 node wifi play, I'd probably fire them on the spot, on the basis that they were likely either blind or insane, and maybe throw in a few cheap shots like, "Remember Cometa, Remember Clearwire, Remember Earthlink". Maybe even address the CAble Co board with, "Lets not forget who we are, we are the best darn Cable Co in the country, lets keep it that way, no reason to tarnish our name with Wifi failures.". Unless, they pulled an "infinity", and launched a different brand name for the wifi project. Maybe its partially an attitude of "what do we have to loose"? IF the project fails, one up side is we destroyed teh RF environment to reduce WISP's effectiveness, a disruptive defensive measure masked as a legit project for public good. Maybe its boredom? We got the money, why not try something new? The other thing is they'll reaslize that its hard to deploy in public spots with the game plan that "this is for Comcast subscribers". The venues will want Wifi for all patrons, not just patrons of Comcast. Sure it could be with a fee for everyone else, but again, the trend now adays is free wifi, and that is what public venues will want. Venues wont want the comcast wifi to interfere with their own. These are generally the flaws that The big Cos dont recognize early on. Just becaues there is an intent to dbuy and deploy 10,000 nodes doesn;t mean one can find 10,000 useful places to install them, where they are allowed to install them. Maybe, I'm not the insightful one, but personally, I feel Comcast and TimeWarner would be much better off concentrating on expanding Cable to the remainign 24% of unserved rural Americans, than messin around with wifi. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, Janua
Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi
Agreed. But I question the reasons, because there are more than one factor leading their interest. Some of it is vendor pressure. Some of it Egos sore from past failed attempts. For example, the big Cable Cos were major investors in Clearwire (and maybe other WImax alliances), and had to pull out without a ROI. Human phychy typical responses are either 1) that didn't wotk, forget that market, or 2) I'll show them (the world), we'll just do it ourselves and be in control of our investment, or 3) Of you fall off the horse, get back on and try a again, except more out of pride than good judgement. Or maybe its just fear of a competitor being one up?.Verizon/ATT has the bundle and we dont, shouldn't we be competing with the Jones? Or, some guy working from his basement can do this, surely we should be able to Lets explore it. I'd find it hard to believe that the primary justification would be, "we crunched the numbers and did some preliminary engineering, and this is one super exicting big profit venture." Heck, I honestly can say, if I were the President of Time Warner or Comcast, and some bozo pitched the the board to start a 10,000 node wifi play, I'd probably fire them on the spot, on the basis that they were likely either blind or insane, and maybe throw in a few cheap shots like, "Remember Cometa, Remember Clearwire, Remember Earthlink". Maybe even address the CAble Co board with, "Lets not forget who we are, we are the best darn Cable Co in the country, lets keep it that way, no reason to tarnish our name with Wifi failures.". Unless, they pulled an "infinity", and launched a different brand name for the wifi project. Maybe its partially an attitude of "what do we have to loose"? IF the project fails, one up side is we destroyed teh RF environment to reduce WISP's effectiveness, a disruptive defensive measure masked as a legit project for public good. Maybe its boredom? We got the money, why not try something new? The other thing is they'll reaslize that its hard to deploy in public spots with the game plan that "this is for Comcast subscribers". The venues will want Wifi for all patrons, not just patrons of Comcast. Sure it could be with a fee for everyone else, but again, the trend now adays is free wifi, and that is what public venues will want. Venues wont want the comcast wifi to interfere with their own. These are generally the flaws that The big Cos dont recognize early on. Just becaues there is an intent to dbuy and deploy 10,000 nodes doesn;t mean one can find 10,000 useful places to install them, where they are allowed to install them. Maybe, I'm not the insightful one, but personally, I feel Comcast and TimeWarner would be much better off concentrating on expanding Cable to the remainign 24% of unserved rural Americans, than messin around with wifi. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:41 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi Agreed. The technology is different, the model is different, the reasons are different. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 1/31/2012 2:13 PM, Brian Webster wrote: Tom, I have sat in on planning these networks with Time Warner and Comcast. The way they are building these versions they will work for their purposes. Trust me I have built a couple of large scale muni networks J In regards to the mounting issues, so long as they have above ground outside plant life will be good for them. These nodes mount on the suspended messenger wire, not the poles. That means they can just attach them to their existing lines. I'm not saying that it will be easy but it's much easier than someone else trying to build given the fact that they already occupy the space on said poles. They are also planning to ink deals with local businesses to mount nodes when necessary. Since they will be wiring every node to their network for backhaul, there is no requirement for any wireless meshing, just connectivity to the client device. They do not necessarily plan to have a contiguous network market wide, just where there are likely to be high concentrations of users. This also not meant to be a network that will hand off connections from node to node at highway speeds. They are assuming a relatively stationary user of the system. This whole design philosophy is quite different from the muni Wi-Fi networks most of us think about. The real reason they are building these is to keep customer churn down by offering existing broadband and video customers a free mobility component in areas they are likely to need it. I would expect the
Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi
Yes, a typical tactic for the sole purpose to destroy the RF environment, and scare high ARPU businesses and investors from trusting third party unlicensed wireless providers solutions. Its all about fear factor. But Just like any other large scale MUNI network, it wont work, and will be to costly to maintain, and the bad press will incourage the Cable Cos to shut down the networks instead of continueing to damage their brand's reputation as a quality high speed resildential provider. They can plan to deploy 10,000 nodes, but planning has no value if there is no where to put/mount them. Maybe they could mount them inside people's homes :-) Surely, they aren't going to work mounted on their tiny green 2ft pedestals on every corner. Surely, they aren't going to pay landlords $200/month each to mount on 10,000 commercial building roofs. What they more likely would do is go put in Wifi access points into the communities that they do not want to dig up the streets and bring cable to, that the City/states are trying to force them to do with cable, leveraging the franchise agreement renegotiations. A attitude like, get off my back, why spend $5000 to dig, when I can spend $200 on an access point and pretend we serve everyone, and make it a play on all the lobbying WISPs did to say, "wireless is good enough" for WISPs, so it must also be good enough for Cable Cos. I could easilly see Comcast applying for USF, and using Wireless combined with Cable. >Time Warner is planning I believe around 10,000 node in the LA market this >year and after they get that market proven, they plan on rolling out >nationwide in their markets Except the market wont be proven successful. Funny how history repeats itself. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' ; memb...@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi It's not just the cellular industry. Comcast is deploying 18,000 outdoor wi-fi nodes this year and giving that service for free to their customers to keep them happy in a mobile environment and reduce churn. Time Warner is planning I believe around 10,000 node in the LA market this year and after they get that market proven, they plan on rolling out nationwide in their markets. The networks are specifically being designed for tablets and wi-fi enabled phones in a nomadic but not seamless mobile environment. Being that the cable companies who sold spectrum to Verizon for 3.5 billion dollars, they are using some of that money for these deployments. For those in those metro markets, these carriers are planning both 2.4 and 5 GHz dual mode radios. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:00 PM To: "memb...@wispa.org" w; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Ericsson is buying BelAir, betting on Wi-Fi In a sure sign that the cellular industry is getting serious about Wi-Fi, telecom networking giant Ericsson is buying BelAir Networks, adding its high-performance outdoor hotspot technology to its portfolio, sources told GigaOM. The deal could signal a big shift in the mindset of the big wireless vendors, which have always favored their own specialized and expensive cellular technologies to meet growing mobile data demand rather than more generic but much cheaper Wi-Fi tech... <http://gigaom.com/broadband/ericsson-pursuing-wi-fi-with-belair-networks-buy/> -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"Serving the WISP Community since 1993www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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] Juniper Network
I had a fun converstation the other day... The consultant advisor's optinion was the Linux should be replaced with Cisco, on the merit that a soultion was needed that was well known, so investors would feel more comfortable knowing that operating the network didn't have to rely on me. Then we discussed to operate the Cisco, we would need to hire a $150k per year Cisco engineer, at a cost 4x above the previous year's operating cost. So I responded questioning the consultant, "so you are saying we need build a network that relies on a high salary individual other than I? So then if the network breaks, I'd be helpless, and I'd be in deep trouble, if the Network engineer quit or asked for another raise? The advise didn't sit well with me, and it had nothing to do with a technology comparison of the two products types, and I in no way mean to downplay the value of Cisco. My point here is... The most effective router is really the one that the user is most familiar with. It doesn't matter how powerful the Cisco, Juniper and foundry are, if you and your techs dont know how to operate them, when you need to on a moments notice. Its really about, which selection will allow you to more easilly and speedily resolve the task at hand. Its amazing how a $400 Linux Box (such as MIkrotik) can quickly solve a problem. With that said, We've been looking into Juniper lately, I like that their new lines are all based on the same Juno OS, which is Linux. :-) So, my recommendation is... What are you familiar with? Use that. I'm not familiar with the Juniper model and foundry products listed to know if that is a good product to keep or not. What I will say is, if uysing MIktotik, you want to consider more than jsut number of subs. What speed is the Internet backbone the MT would connect to? How would you plan to use the Mikrotik, from a protocol feature perspective? A MT1100 will easilly push 100mb FDX traffic. But if you plan on having a lot of queuing and rules (x200 users), it can be slowed down very quickly. In those cases, its worth paying an extra $200-$400, to upgrade to one of the faster CPUcore type third party hardware models, such as sold by Baltic, Titan, or LinkTechnologies. A Dual core INtel 1.5G-2.4Ghz CPU model are very affordble and adds some horsepower for using MT features. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 2:09 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Juniper Network >I just took over an abandoned network which I have to get up and running in >no time. There's a Juniper J2300, ISG 1000 and some foundry switches. >Wondering whether to trash the equipment and put in an MT RB1100 in? We >won't have more than 200 users at the peak. Need suggestions. > > Thanks > > Akinlolu C. Ajayi-Obe > AS Technologies Ltd > Tel. 234(0)8023258027 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-requ...@wispa.org > Sender: wireless-boun...@wispa.org > Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:00:06 > To: > Reply-To: wireless@wispa.org > Subject: Wireless Digest, Vol 49, Issue 22 > > Send Wireless mailing list submissions to > wireless@wispa.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > wireless-requ...@wispa.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > wireless-ow...@wispa.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wireless digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: If radios act weird today... (~V~) > 2. Re: If radios act weird today... (Jim Patient) > 3. Re: If radios act weird today... (~V~) > 4. Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) (Ben West) > 5. Re: Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) > (Sam Tetherow) > 6. Re: Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) (Ben West) > 7. Re: If radios act weird today... (Tom DeReggi) > 8. Re: Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) (Ben West) > 9. Re: Engenius hardware from Microcenter (don't do it!) > (Jeromie Reeves) > 10. Solution for high bandwidth semi-mobile link (cj sattler) > 11. Re: Solution for high bandwidth semi-mobile link (Gino Villarini) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:21:17 -0600 > From: "~V~" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] If radios act weird today... > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Message-ID: <001e01ccdac4$f74fa960$e5eefc20$@com>
Re: [WISPA] If radios act weird today...
Actually, I've observed RF issues from Solar Flares numerous times in the past. A common symptom is RSSI dropping up to 10 db temporarilly during the effected period on some paths. Can be a problem for links operating on the threshold of acceptable link. It helps to know when the solar flairs come, just so you know to wait it out, instead of sending a truck to chase every temporary RSSI drop that day. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt Hoppes" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] If radios act weird today... > YAWN. I have yet to see a solar flare cause issues not saying it > won't... just saying the news media blows this stuff up every time. > > > Matt Hoppes > Director of Information Technology > Indigo Wireless > +1 (570) 723-7312 > > On 1/24/12 8:53 AM, Bret Clark wrote: >> Solar flare blasts radiation storm toward Earth >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57364089-76/solar-flare-blasts-radiation-storm-toward-earth/ >> >> >> >> >> >> 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] Cordless Phone Ring Interference
Only thing is... he is reporting that the use of the phone does not disconnect service, just the ringer ringing disconnects it. I'm not sure that the Ringer has anything to do with the 2.4Ghz spectrum block. Or I should say, it would not use anymore spectrum ringing than Talking. I'd guess talking would use more, with a constant stream going. Buying a new phone could replicate the ringer problem. I'd first confirm that it is in fact for sure just the ringer causing the problem. Make sure its not a power related thing or something like a radio power supply in same port as phone power supply, causing something to reboot, etc. If your CPE has logs, check them to verify if association was actually lost. Most 2.4G phones that dont have selectable channels usually have sutomatic selecting channels that select channel at a specific step. For example, powering on the unit when the handset is in place, or hitting the find receiver button, when handset is in place, or what ever mechanism it uses. What you want to do is generate wifi noise on your Internet CPE radio or LAN WIFI channels (persistent pings), so that when the phone searches for a channel, it can hear noise on your channels, and can select something different. My advise is to get the model number of phone before going on site, and using Internet to download the manual to review before initiating the tech support insodent with the consumer. Use phone support, to walk the end user through the proceedure of resetting the phone channel. The advantage of attempting a basic fix with the customer involved is that it gives you an opportunity to educate the customer, to possibly avoid future unnecessary tech support calls. Although I would agree that buying the end user a new phone would be more cost effective than timely tech support on the WISP's dollar, I'd argue that WISP offering to pay for the phone would be a mistake, as it sets the presidence that you are willing to pay for things that aren't your problem. The next thing you know you are buying customers new free routers and wifi cards everytime there are unexplained issues with service. What I'd recommend is recommending to the client that "they" buy a new phone, because phone are cheap, and maybe recommend a better brand. (Once you determine what a better brand is, such as Dect6 ones recommended.). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Josh Luthman" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference Definitely DECT phone. Version doesn't matter - it's all in the 1.9 band. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff wrote: > I would concur with this too > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 26, 2011, at 3:29 PM, "Brian Webster" > wrote: > >> With the price of cordless phones now days and the cost of your customer >> support time, I would just buy them a new phone. If you get a DECT 6.0 >> version you are certain not to have problems. Those are used exclusively >> in >> the guard bands around the 1800 MHz PCS frequencies and are set aside >> specifically for cordless phones only. It's also fairly cheap to get a >> multi >> extension set. >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Webster >> www.wirelessmapping.com >> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Scott Reed >> Sent: Monday, December 26, 2011 3:11 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] Cordless Phone Ring Interference >> >> I have a customer that has determined that every time the phone rings, >> the >> Internet goes down. Once the phone is answered, the Internet works. We >> are >> using 2.4GHz to the house, with an integrated Arc panel on the roof. >> The customer has checked and the phone does not have a channel selection >> button. >> Anyone have suggestions as to how to get the phone to not kill the >> wireless >> link? >> >> -- >> Scott Reed >> Owner >> NewWays Networking, LLC >> Wireless Networking >> Network Design, Installation and Administration >> >> >> >> Mikrotik Advanced Certified >> >> www.nwwnet.net >> (765) 855-1060 >> (765) 439-4253 >> (855) 231-6239 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >>
Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs
> The FCC just had to have a date, and was nice enough to not close it > too early. This also gives WISPs time to do some more construction > and have it included. > Thats one way to look at it. (And probably the more productive way, recognizing the timeline to protect opportunity.) > The whole-state rule applies to the big ILECs. If they say no, the > rules for the auction aren't written yet, and may work on a smaller > basis. I think that's one of the things to discuss in the FNPRM > Comments, which are due 24 January. But why would big ILEC's say, "no" ? Isn't this process pressuring the ILECs to say "yes". Giving the ILECs a second chance to get another free ride, now for broadband? If ILEC took subsidee for Voice in past, why would they not do the same for Data? Small ILECs might say no, because they might not have the funding or resources to take on a super large project even with subsidee. But Big Telco surely has the finances. We can use ATT as an example, who is advertising to cover all of America in 5 years, anyway. Do you think there is any chance that the big telco might say "no" in some states, I dont want USF? It has happened in the past, to some extent. I can give the example of Verizon pulling out of a low profit analog market, and letting a smaller LEC take over such as either Century tel or Frontier (forget which LEC, and which Eastern state).. Back then it made sense with Verizon focusing on FIOS preferring to bypass regulation, that FIOS allowed them. But would that same justification still be there, when USF subsidees are there to compensate? > If the location is "served" on the National > Broadband Map, or if the ILEC *knows* it's served by an unsubsidized > competitor, it's off limits .. > Again, only unserved areas will get > support, though an ILEC can use support to build common plant in an > area that is more than 50% unserved. Also, regarding those to comments in your original Email... I think the risk here is the same that it was with ARRA. Whats the definition of "unserved", and but more importantly what is the definition of "area", and what is the protest proof process, and is WISP's coverage large enough to qualify an area as served? And will gerrymandering allow a recipient to get around it? Obviously, the National MAP, that documents all reported coverage from all carriers will help quite a bit. But I'm still concerned that many WISP's coverage will be to small of a take rate or area, to be proportional enough to mark an area as "served". I can tell you that in my rural markets, it would be near impossible to get over 50% coverage, even if I served everyhome that I had coverage to. Lets use a hypothetical example of the average member WISP having 1000 subs. There are not many areas that have less than 2000 potential subs. I can tell you from community connect grant research, looking at census data, it was tough finding areas that gained maximum points of under 500 households. Did it say anything in the rules, to define what an eligible size "area" is? Both for identifying served and unserved, not just USF qualification? Wondering if NTIA/USDA is going to help identify preferred qualifying area on the broadband map? I dont think it will be as simple as looking for blank spots. IS there currently a map of ILEC coverage area of Voice, that can be overlaid to the broadband map? A question likely to develop for WISPs is What are the safest places to invest in expanding coverage, meaning less likely to get overbuilt with subsidized competition? The very Suburban/Urban and very Rural are becomming most likely for subsidee and harsh competition. Some where in the middle, such as barely rural, may be safer? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Fred Goldstein" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs > At 11/21/2011 08:04 PM, you wrote: >>Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say >>ARRGGG! >> >> > Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per >> > line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to "unserved" areas >> >>Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors >>greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber. >>WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC >>reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not >>to much more.. > > Note that this is "incremental" $775, a subsidy to add to their > capital budget, not the total investment. Of course big ILECs tend >
Re: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs
Yes agreed, its not nearly as bad as it could have been. But I still say ARRGGG! > Price Cap Carriers will be offered $775 per > line to add 4/1 broadband serivce to "unserved" areas Thats much better for WISPs than if they agreed to pay our competitors greater than $10,000 per sub for FIOS like Fiber. WISPs atleast have a chance to compete against 4/1 services, and ILEC reimbursement now inline with what it would cost a WISP to deploy, and not to much more.. > So this might be a good time to make sure the mappers > are aware of your service areas, or to think about short-term service > expansion. yeah, you gotta love help that says "WISPs Go hurry up and build a network at your cost quickly, we wont pay you, but if you dont build quick, we'll pay your competitor instead." (Sarcasm) > The date by which you must be on the map isn't set yet, > but it's presumably in 1H2012. Well, that is good, that they are looking at mapping for disqualification. Also good that not all WISPs reported their coverage in the past. The rules are good incentive for rural WISPs to report now. Those rules may not have ever made it into the FCC rules, without the insight that it would be incentive to get reamining WISPs to report. If WISPs had already reported, why would the FCC have needed to include consideration and incentive in the new rules? > Phase II starts in 2013. For this, Price Cap Carriers will be > offered support based on a cost model that the FCC will create in > 2012. Once the model is complete, the ILEC will decide if it wants > to take that support for its territory on a state-by-state (all of a > state or nothing) basis. Thats the bad part Only a select few monopoly like companies can afford to do complete State wide deployment, even when subsidized. So basically, the FCC is saying Time to force the Monopolies to serve ALL Americans, and leave no unserved areas left for the competitive property. Rather than fix the problem, the FCC is trying to secure that the remaining 25% of America will have subsidized competitors to private investment. There is no longer a consideration for the best party to serve a specific area. Preferrence is given to the big boy. no different than Auctions, where only the most fortunate and dominant player can win. The biggest flaw in telecom policy is the concept of Serving everyone or no one. Its the founation for every monopoly cable franchise type agreement, and now being replicated into CAF. Forcing acceptance on a complete state-by-state basis in my opinion is a major loss for the industry. Because the mind set hasn't changed from old telecom. They are still thinking "state regulation" and "utility electricity", where there is only ONE primary provider per state. Although, I will admit, these funds are targeted to UNSERVED areas, so atleast they aren't giving the whole state away. Just the least desirable part of the state for wireline to serve. They are saying. "WISPs, if you can serve someone new this year, great, go for it, its your last chance, before we give the market to someone else." > A separate Extremely High Cost fund will allocate up to $100M/year > for locations too costly (by the model) to serve via the standard > subsidy. This will be separately bid, and it's assumed that fixed > wireless and satellite will be the mostly likely technologies. So > this could allow some subsidies to rustic-but-Bell-area WISPs. Yes, that may be good for WISPs. Or, better positioned ILECs to become WISPs. > So on balance, the FCC has done a lot less harm to the rural WISP > community than it could have, while still encouraging ILECs to deploy > more broadband via subsidies. I fully agree with your conclusion. Realistically, that could be considered a victory, for Rural WISPs. With that said, I would have preferred the FCC to have the balls to name the new program what it really was... They could have called it the "CAIF" - Connect America to ILECs fund. or "KCC-CAF" - Kill Competiton and Choice, but Connect America Fund.". The interesting part will be to see how many RURAL ILECs will choose to accept $768 per sub, to build out to all remaining Americans in their state. What else will be interesting will be to see if, the RBOC fund recipients really do what they are obligated to do afterwords. I think it is an ambitious plan to try to get the remaining American's some form of broadband, which outcome would likely be good, I just cant say I agree with the method. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Fred R. Goldstein" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:02 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC releases USF/ICC Order, rules on subsidizing ILECs
Re: [WISPA] Customer Usage
I believe Excessive usage should be calculated by considering the average use. Ignore the top 5% and lower 5% users, then add up all those in between and divide by the number of subs considered, and taht will give a good average. If 50G is the average, its OK if one guy does 75, if its matched by a guy that only does 25. Thats what over subscription and averaging is all about. Then you need to calculate your total available capacity. Then you need to calculate your "total" cost to deliver that capacity. Until you have those numbers, you dont really know what you should charge for averge usage. Is average usage above or below your cost to deliver, from a per GB point of view? How much growth in average use can you tolerate, and still be profitable? I'd suggest doubleing average usage, and start charging extra per GB, once it exceeds that value of doubling average use. But even then, that misses the boat. You really need to define how many subs you want to be able to serve per sector, and then calaculate the maximum tolerable average use able to be accommodated on your technology. What ever that number is, you then need to compare it to what your current average use is. When I calculate cost, I pretend I have half the badnwdit h that I have. If its a 10mb sector, I consider it 5mb. That allows the business model to work during growth phase, understanding that you'll need to upgrade to handle demand before a network is saturated. And factoring that a network works less good when operating at peak capacity, so leaving your self some headroom. I dont actually carge people pe GB, but the math is all the same, whether the choice is to charge more when it reaches a threshold versus bandwdith limit when a threashold has been reached. Another approach is to compare it to the cost of a movie. For example, if Comcast charges $5 for a movie, and an average movie is 5GB large, then charge $1 per GB. Make it a financial deission for the customer to choose video over Internet versus Dish/Comcast, so it is strictly a decission of convenience. My point is, its not a generic answer what to charge. It reall dpends what your capacity and costs are, which can vary drastically for many reasons. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Andy Trimmell To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 4:25 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Customer Usage If your #2 user is using 37GB then I'd call anything above 75GB excessive. Our biggest package is 60GB and then charge $1 per GB over with a maximum of a $250 monthly bill. So in theory they can have an unlimited package for $250 a month J We have a guy that consistently goes to about 120gb per month. He pays for a business package which is $100 a month and he sometimes goes over $10 a something. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of David Hannum Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 8:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Customer Usage What do you folks feel is "excessive" usage on your system? And how do you deal with it? Do you have bandwidth limits? Where do you draw the line. I have one residential sub who month after month uses more bandwidth than the next 3-4 residential subs combined. Last month, they used over 105GB. Is this excessive? The next top residential sub in the same month consumed 37GB (which in and of itself was 10GB higher than the next one). With Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc, this may be the new normal . . . Thoughts? Kind Regards, David Hannum New Era Broadband, LLC -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT sectors 120s, 90s, or 60s?
My answer is... 60 deg. Actually, if I had my way, I'd prefer under 45 deg. Without detailed specs for the antennas, to understand what the product would be adding, its hard to suggest the market for each. UBNT makes wonderful and affordable 90 and 120 deg antennas, and if someone wants 90 or 120, I dont see why anyone would buy anything different than the proven product already available. (unless KP's antennas add something).. What I can say is that there are not any 60 deg dual pol high quality sectors on the market today, and there is a need for such a product. Admittedly, I tend to use 90 degs now. But I'd use more 60 deg, if they were available, even if it meant not gaining 360 deg coverage. I believe a combination of 5.8 and 5.3/4 is needed in combination to gain 360 coverage. In Urban and heavilly saturated suburban environments 90-120 degree antennas are almost unusable, atleast not at high modulations. The secret to a successful WISP is getting the highest modulations possible so they get the most capacity. And its better to have more capacity for limited coverage, than not enough capacity for full coverage, because with a more powerful offering, the take rate will be higher in the narrower coverage. It is true, that today, with UBNT only certified in 5.8 MIMO, 60 deg antennas would not likely safely enable full 360 degree coverage in most cases, prior to sync, and maybe not even then with noise floors. And as well, low density would warrant cost savings of fewer sectors. And obtaining 360deg is more important in low density areas. I'm sure this is why 120 and 90s are more attractive to rural WISPs. But the needs are much different for noisy Suburban/Urban. 120-90 deg antennas are to risky to use in urban cases. It should also be noted that spectrum reuse is sometimes possible, in Urban areas, mounted on opposite sides of penthouses, even without syncing, and often 10Mhz channels can be used to gain the coverage. Urban will choose 10Mhz, if they have a low colo cost, and can prove that higher modulation is achievable with less noise as a result of narrower sectors. So the decission may come down to which market segment KP wants to target, rural versus urban. And if they want a unique product, or compete head to head with others that have equivellent products. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Shane MacDonald To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 10:58 AM Subject: [WISPA] UBNT sectors 120s, 90s, or 60s? We are trying to decide which degree Ubiquiti sectors to release in December. Our production line can handle two of the three for a mid December release date and want your feedback. The 120 degree version is pretty much a lock but we want your opinion between the 90s or 60s so we release the sectors you require. Please reply to the list or send me an email directly as your response will weigh heavily on our decision. Thanks, Shane MacDonald KP Performance Antennas Sales Marketing Manager sh...@kpperformance.ca www.kpperformance.ca Direct line 780-702-9977 Fax 780-460-2786 KP Performance Antennas is a proud sponsor of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) www.signup.wispa.org -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/<> WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
At the end of the day it boils down to whether its justified for a WISP to risk going to court. Admittedly, any government industry can cause a private company a lot of pain, if they want to, if you challenge them. That is not something someone should consider doing, lightly. With that said sometimes one must take a stand to defend their rights and what they believe in. Even if not cost effective for their own good, if its for the good of their industry. Just like BrandX, eventually someone had to step up to take it to trial, win or loose. If a WISP was put in a position that they had to go to court, I bet that other third party groups would be willing to assist fund the battle behind the scenes. I'm not talking just other WISPs. I'm talking about other big money companies that couldn't risk a netneutrality loss on the court record, documenting presidence. My "opinion" is that it would not be wise for the federal enforcement agencies to target small organizations to challenge their rulemaking in court. One, It would be a media/publicity nightmare. Such as "FCC puts small business out of business". Two, It would be embaressing, and make FCC look weak. "Bully FCC picks on the little guy". Three, Small WISPs would gain more sympathee from Juries than Big money Telcos. In my "opinion" the FCC rule making is not legal. Atleast not for those that aren't telecom act defined regulated carriers. And in my opinion, a WISP could simply refuse to comply, and demand that the FCC obtain a court order to back their claim of authority. If the FCC came knocking on my door to enforce an alledged NetNeutrality issue, I would fight it. I think the "disclosure portion" is the one good part of the FCC rulemaking. For that reason, I plan to comply with the disclosure portion, just because it makes good sense to do it anyway. Not to mention it would be just plain stupid not to comply to such an easy request, which would be almost like "requesting a challenge", not to cooperate on such an easy request. Plus, not disclosing info could open up a WISP to legal issues covered by laws not related to NetNeutrality, such as truth in advertising. Disclosure should be vague, so not to self inciminate more than necessary. But as far as complying to the other rules of NetNeutrality, I am going to operate my network the way I want to, and I'm not going to change that, unless I'm forced to. Please note, in general I respect the FCC's authority, and my viewpoint stated herein is strictly relating to "NetNeutrality". Hopefully, I as well as other WISPs will operate their networks fairly, so this issue never has to come up. So many issues could be defended by "reasonable network mangement", to defend oneself without the need for court. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Tony Iacopi" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Hi there, Unfortunately I would love to agree with Matt and the fact that I paid for the network so I should be able to do what I want with it, however, the way it is currently written, if you provide internet service (which I believe we all do) you are suppose to comply. I also agree that it is a flagrant overreach for the FCC but until it is overruled it is in place. Got to love the Governments "protection" of the small business owner. Thanks Tony Iacopi -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick - Lists Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 5:55 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality "The fact that the DC Circuit (their motto: "We hate the FCC") got the case raises the odds even more." LOL...have I mentioned how much I enjoy having you back on lists Fred? Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality At 10/25/2011 07:43 PM, Matt Larsen wrote: If you are a Title II regulated telco, they might apply to you. As an operator of a privately funded broadband network, Net Neutrality does not apply to you. You paid for it, you can do what you want with it. Legally, per the letter of the Communications Act, that's true. The FCC does not agree; Part 8 leaves the original monopoly common carriers unregulated, but purports to regulate ISP content. However, I give it a much greater than even probability to be overturned by a court, because it is so flagrantly illegal. In fact, I think the FCC ex
Re: [WISPA] Metro wifi for free in USA
I'm not aware of any successful free Wifi project. If there is one, "success" is defined by "the eye of the beholder", and I'm sure the users have a different opinion (harder standard) than the the advocates who want to look good convincing the public it was successful. Bottom line Network engineering and ongoing support is expensive, in unlicensed where the environment can constantly change. Smart Radio self diagnose and auto repair functionality is not realistic, because a radio only knows how to take care of itself, not considering how it efffects other radios it interfers with (which could be the same provider's network). With no revenue, there is nothing to pay for maintenance. With no maintenance, users get frustrated, and there become few users. With few users, paying for it from alternate sources such as "advertising dollars", doesn't work. Even subsidized free networks generally wont work because no one would have the incentive to really care to make the network work optimally always. Engineers make networks work, because if they dont, they loose the needed revenue and subscribers that puts food on the table. Take that dynamic away, and its a formula for failure. Nothing is "free". "free" wifi has generally only worked on the scale of an individual venue, where as the venue has an alternate source of revenue (such as hotel ), and the value add attract customers and higher rates for the alternate core business, and its justified for that venue to pay for the maintenance of the wifi. The key is "incentive". What incentive is there, for the WISP to operate and support their network well? The other problem is scale. Wifi does not scale to the level that free wifi visionaries think. The more it is scaled the harder it is to make it work. Charging a fee is critical to reduce demand. Free Wifi was almost an acceptable idea when luxary Internet was under 200kbps. We live in a more capacity demanding world today. People forget about the little things like WIFI APs barely being able to handle 30 subs in ideal situations, because of ACK, hidden node, retransmissions, etc, regardless of the capacity used. (unless more expensive true TDD systems are used). it takes careful engineering on a link by link basic to scale and get the capacity out of wifi gear, and that isn't free. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Paolo Di Francesco" To: "Josh Luthman" Cc: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Metro wifi for free in USA > Hi Josh > > thank you for your nice reply. :) > > I hope that also other WISPs will express an opinion about this topic. > > Regards, > Paolo > > >> 1) Typically cities try, get bids and the company drops the idea. It >> doesn't offer a good return on investment. >> 2) Yep, many many times >> 3) I would. I'd lose customers and I'm paying for it to happen! >> 4) There are several success stories involving this, I don't have one >> myself >> Josh Luthman >> Office: 937-552-2340 >> Direct: 937-552-2343 >> 1100 Wayne St >> Suite 1337 >> Troy, OH 45373 >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Paolo Di Francesco >> wrote: >>> Dear All >>> >>> I am not from USA and I am very curious about free wifi access in the >>> metro area in USA. I was wondering: >>> >>> 1) is there any metro free wifi access (NY, LA, etc) >>> 2) I know some time ago some private effort has been done (I guess by >>> google) but I also remember that those networks miserably failed >>> 3) would anybody of you complain (as member of your local community) if >>> your local municipality would offer wifi free using your taxes? And >>> would you complain as WISP if they would use your taxes to give wifi for >>> free? >>> 4) do you see any business in giving 1 hour (or time limited) wifi for >>> free to users in order to push them to buy more hours? What is the >>> average amount in terms of hours per day of your customers on the >>> hotspots? >>> >>> Any information is really appreciated >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> Ing. Paolo Di Francesco >>> >>> Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale >>> >>> Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo >>> >>> C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 >>> Fax : +39-091-8772072 >>> assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 >>> web: http://www.level7.it >>> >>> >>> >&
Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] EasyUBNT
I have not looked at the link/app yet. But... I wonder whether the value is as much abilty to access the UBNT remotely for maintenance? Such as formatted for Phone screen size. Someone always carriers a phone, but not always a laptop. For installation, I question whether the "config" feature is easier, having to type on small phone keyboards That gives me a head ache. But I surely see the benefit of alignment from a cell phone. I really hate it, when the laptop gets dropped over the edge of the roof :-( One case of that would pay for the software for 10-15 cell phones. Although many will argue, thats the point of the embedded LEDs. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] EasyUBNT I see the stats and such but I don't see a difference between it and the web interface already there from an installer point of view. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Oct 30, 2011 6:24 PM, "Chuck Hogg" wrote: Watch the videos...it'll give you more. I agree the price is steep...but if it makes life easier on my 1 man crews, so be it. Regards, Chuck On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > $40 per phone? That's insane. All it does is put the information in > application in place of using the browser. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: >> Apparently Alignment and Configuration. I'm not sure though, he just >> sent me the link. >> >> Regards, >> >> Chuck >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Josh Luthman >> wrote: >>> Used for alignment? >>> >>> Josh Luthman >>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>> 1100 Wayne St >>> Suite 1337 >>> Troy, OH 45373 >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2011 5:33 PM, "Chuck Hogg" wrote: >>>> >>>> One of my installers has been using this neat tool. It's for the Droid. >>>> >>>> http://www.easyubnt.com >>>> >>>> Makes it easier on him for sure. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Chuck >>>> ___ >>>> Ubnt_users mailing list >>>> ubnt_us...@wispa.org >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/ubnt_users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ --
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
Let me give you an example of Firmware voodoo... Noise detected for link was like nothing on numerous channels... Started with Firm 5.4.1 link acting weird. So downgraded to 5.3.3. Rocket GPS on one side, Rocket on other. Couldn't downgrade lower, because Rocket-GPS wont allow it. Embedded speed testshows... RCV 27mbps, TX 21mbps, SimutanousBoth TX 1.5mb, RCV 19mbps. Something wrong. Link should be able to do full MCS7 Modulation, but only getting 39mb modulation (MCS4). Couldn't find any way to cure.. Upgrade to 5.4.1, and the throughput becomes symetrical. In a symetrical (simultaneous both) test, I get TX 15mbps, and RCV 15mbps. Problem solved, to get even consistent throughput. (note: Airmax on, Airsync off). Why only getting MCS4 undetermiend. In this case, I'm theorizing the possible cause One side has a dual pol, and the second side has a single pole. Nrmally if this ever occured, we'd cap off the unused port on the single pol side, but in this case we did not. When we climbed we ran into a problem, where we could not get teh dual pol antenna up the tower, with the number of people and supllies we had on site at the time. Because isntall tiem was urgent, we decided to instead use a pre-installed antenna altready up the tower, but it was only single pol. Our plan was that we'd replace the Feed to Dual pol, in a few weeks, on the next climb. We already had a cable waterproofed taped to the radio, since we pre-planned for Dual pol. But I did not have a cap handy. So I left the second chain cable, hanging, and waterproof taped up, temporarilly. Unfortunately, with UBNT, there is no way to stop transmitting on the second chain. The cable end will spew noise at no polarity, since an antenna is not attached, thus there is no cross polarity isolation from the first chain. I think what is happening is the TX signal from the unused secondary chain is self-interfering with the first chain, and because of this the lower SNR only allows the first chain to transmit at a max of MCS4. This is my theory, but I wont know for sure, until we climb in a week to two. But my point here is, which firmware made a huge difference in what results we could get, until fixed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Stuart Pierce" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput > Have you tried to not use auto for ack and set the ack for 1.5 > times the distance ? > > -- Original Message -- > From: Mike Hammett > Reply-To: WISPA General List > Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 05:38:39 -0500 > >>I haven't deployed any Rocket PtP links with less than 55 > signal. >> >>Have you followed UBNT's best practices guide? >>http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/Best%20Practices.pdf >> >>Next step, hit up their forum or their support. Matt at UBNT > worked some >>magic on one of my links and it has been solid ever since. >> >>- >>Mike Hammett >>Intelligent Computing Solutions >>http://www.ics-il.com >> >> >> >>On 10/24/2011 4:52 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote: >>> >>> Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about > 30mbps. My >>> signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise - > 85+). >>> ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is > approx >>> 1.5mi). cable not an issue. any thoughts? >>> >>> *From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless- > boun...@wispa.org] >>> *On Behalf Of *Tom DeReggi >>> *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM >>> *To:* WISPA General List >>> *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput >>> >>> You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK >>> distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third > party >>> factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant > generate >>> that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers. >>> >>> The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and > see if the >>> speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops > proportionally. I >>> bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better. >>> >>> Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not > mean you >>> have a clean channel for sure. Also remember, the Eth port > is limited >>> to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to >>> distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to > PC, >>> isolating RF path, just for grins. It is very rare to find > 40Mhz
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
Can't rely on the noise level reading indicated on a live link's status screen. (although we tend to put a lot of weight on the noise shown using the Spectrum Scanner over a period of time, paying attention to the peak value (blue line) ). But even then, the results are shown as a single reading, and not individually for each polarity. What happens if one polarity is low noise and the other polarity has super high noise? For a noise free 2 mile ubiquiti link at 20Mhz, dual pol, we can actually get Iperf to push 70mbps. Although testing with devices/laptops attached tp ends of the radios. So if you can only get 40mbps, something is wrong with the testing method or the link. Heck, a 10mhz channel can push 35-40mbps with Iperf, at top modulation.. You could continue further by dropping down to 10Mhz, and seeing the rate of change. Also at 20Mhz, you have the flexibilty to change channels to make sure you aren't centered on a bad channel. What speed does the UBNT embedded speed test show? Note UBNT test is also based on TCP. On average our testing usally will see very simlar speed results comparing the UBNT built in test to Iperf. If UBNT test is also slow, you definately have a link issue. If UBNT test is much faster, then scrutinze your testing devices. Or play with Iperf to make sure its not the Iperf setting s you are using requiring tweaking. Also, if using Iperf, try parallel streams, to see if you get a higher agregate throughput. That will tell you if it is a real capacity limit, or a TCP slow down issue due to quality. It should be noted that the UBNT Rocket using it's embeeded test tool, can successfully perform a full speed test. I've tested up to 85mbps. So, to reduce variables, to trouble shoot a link problem, rely on the embedded test tool until such time that the embeeded tool can reach full speed. Once that is accomplished, you can scrutinize link quality further with Iperf. The only need for Iperf is to test multi-hop to a non-UBNT end point, or parallel streams, to gather more data. We had an issue with Bullets not to long ago, where 5.3.3 firmware was super slow, but switching down to a 5.2 version solve the performance problem. But that is not a Rocket. We've used later firmwares for Rockets fine, usually. When you push traffic does your modulation change frequently? or stay steady? Generally its good practice to leave radio set to a max mode equivllent to what it will stay at on average without downshifting. if your link generally stays steady on a mode/modulation, and you are not getting throughput appropriate for that modulation, using the UBNT inbedded tests, its usually a timing thing, preventing the link from functioning optimally. Manually stting the ACK time is one thing that is within your control to play with. When in doubt, if nothing makes sense, and you cant solve it, try changing firmware. Not only upgrade but downgrade. This has fixed our performance issues numerous times, even though a clear answer of why, was not determined. What antennas are you using? Are they UBNT? If not, do they have a high enough port-to-port isolation? You also cant rule out multipath self interference, as with that you wont see noise if you aren't transmitting. You can try narrowing antenna beamwidth, if you aren't already. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick D. Nix, Jr To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 5:52 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput Ok tried 20mhz, throughput drops about 10mbps to about 30mbps. My signal is at least 20db better than noise (signal -59 noise -85+). ACK is set auto with distance of 2 miles (actual distance is approx 1.5mi). cable not an issue. any thoughts? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 3:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third party factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant generate that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers. The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and see if the speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops proportionally. I bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better. Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not mean you have a clean channel for sure. Also remember, the Eth port is limited to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to PC, isolating RF path, just for grins. It is very rare to find 40Mhz of clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest packet loss and
Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput
You probably either have 1) noisy channels, 2) incorrect ACK distances, 3) not optimal firmware version, 4) Or some third party factor effecting testing, such as testing devices that cant generate that much traffic or buffer sizes of routers. The first thing to try is switch down to 20mhz channel and see if the speed tests stays the same or higher, or if it drops proportionally. I bet the 20Mhz channel will perform better. Dont rely on CCQ on its own. Its one indicator, but does not mean you have a clean channel for sure. Also remember, the Eth port is limited to 100mb, and if there is cable quality issues such as due to distance, it could autoadjust to half duplex. Test laptop to PC, isolating RF path, just for grins. It is very rare to find 40Mhz of clean spectrum for Dual polarity, and even the slightest packet loss and delay can drastically reduce TCP throughput. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Patrick D. Nix, Jr To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput Problem is when I turn airmax on the speed really goes in the toilet. Best I can get is about 20mbps. According to ubiquiti airmax needs to be off up to 15km links, anything over that airmax needs to be on. Do you have good success with short airmax ptp links? From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 2:45 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Rocket M5 Throughput Turn AirMax on. Travis On 10/24/2011 1:36 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote: What is the best real TCP throughput up/down anyone is getting on a PtP ubnt connection? We have two rocket M5 approx 1.5 mi, CCQ 97-98%, 40mhz channel width, airmax off. Displayed TX/RX rate is 270/270. Real TCP throughput via iperf radio to radio is 40-45mbps. Are there some config changes needed perhaps? 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] Honolulu WISP?
Looking for WISP serving Honolulu Hawaii. Please Email me offlist. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 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] Antenna Mounts
Troy, With Andrews dishes, you can get away with smaller diameter pipe than spec'd or other brands such as RadioWaves require. In several cases, This benefit was a primary factor that led us to bypass our standard product line, in favor of a radio brand that supported Anderws dishes, in order to meet a cosmetic, space, or mounting challenge requirement. It should be noted that from an engineering point of view, mounting to a narrow tower leg (maybe 2-3", to a 4.5" diameter mast, to a dish, does not strengthen windloading, as you are still limited to the strength of the weakest link which is the connection to the narrower 2-3" tower leg, except because the antenna offsets further away, the leverage is greater, making the force at the narrower tower leg even worse. I challenge antenna manufactuer's decission to standarize on 4.5" dia masts, but unfortuantely it is what they usually do. With that said A common acceptable practice is to use a short 4.5" dia mast in between the tower and antenna, as described above. I highly recommend using galvanized pipe. It can be found at Tessco or Special ordered from local metal/farming supply stores such as "Standard Supply". Avoid non-galvanized pipe if you can. It can be really expensive to ship 4.5" pole, which is why its a good idea to try and find a local supply store. Choices are limited for galvanized We buy the pole to pole mounts from Valemount Microflect or Tessco. Its important to buy strong pole to pole mounts, that have significant surface area on multiple points of the mast to prevent rotation. I will almost always use more than 2 mounts between the tower and the 4.5" mast. Usually 3 will be fine, but sometimes I'll double it up to 4, if the antenna is heavilly offset to one side and resulting in mast tilt. Do not just rely on the stablizer bar to prevent pivoting. Use good solid pole to pole mounts. Valemounts store sitepro has a few models to choose from. One type uses all-thread that passes through 4 v-shaped metal plates, secured with nuts. This gives the advantage to vary the offset distance between tower and mast. This can be helpful to prevent antenna/mount parts from banging into the second pole, when aligning. I highly recommend using nothing smaller than 5/8" all-thread. Obviously this requires a two mount kit, one for top one for bottom. But doubling up each of the two mount points, increases a mount point from 2 to 4 allthreads, preventing a square that is stronger against twisting/slanting, than just a single The antenna will lock down super tight on the 4.5" mast. But you need to make sure the 4.5" pipe doesn't pivot on the tower. Usually the way it is installed is. The mast gets mounted to the tower first, with two mounts on the bottom fastened. Then the 4 ft dish is raised above the mount, and slid down onto the mast from the top. Then the top pole to pole mount can be installed. After that is done then the stablizer bar is installed. If only mounting a 3" dish, if there is a 3" dia tower leg or wall mast, I'll usually mount the antenna direct to the tower leg or wall mast, without using a 4.5" pole in between, its actually stronger that way, if its supportable or jimmy riggable to do that. I know the Andrews 3ft are. With 4' dishes, its worth following spec and using the 4.5" mast. Andrews sells the stabilizer bar kits as a standard part number. With that said...All Trango brand 3 and 4 foot dishes all come with stablizer bars. If you ever get a chance to look at one, I suggest doing so. It demonstrates a good design, on how it accommmodates mounting to different positioned angles mount points. It probably could be replicated from hardware store parts. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Troy Settle To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] Antenna Mounts Can anyone point me to a specific antenna mounting kit for 3 and 4' Andrew dishes? I've been advised to mount both on a 4" pipe directly on the tower, but as this is my first construction project, I'm more than a little lost on the specifics. Of course the consultants and contractors on this project are being very vague with their answers, and about the only thing I've heard from the vendor, was a mention of "stabilizer bars." Thanks, -Troy -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: w
Re: [WISPA] Adding External Batteries to a UPS
We used these a lot in commercial building closets, because of their compact foot print, and excellent Power protection.. (Although never used the snmp card) We've pulled almost all of them out to date. The reason we stopped using them is that like all other consumer UPSes, they tend to fail bad, when batteries die, and not restore power to the equipment until a site visit to remove UPS from service. (although we did like that it has a physical on/off switch, not just button, to force UPS on state). Whats also a pain is that the internal batteries are NOT easilly removable. You have to take it apart in half, and hope not to short anything in the process, and prey the leads stay on when put back togeather. (unless they've changed the cases, for better access, since) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt" To: "WUG" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] Adding External Batteries to a UPS > Looking at this UPS. > > http://www.tripplite.com/en/products/model.cfm?txtModelID=3007 > > It is small enough to fit in our standard outdoor enclosures. It also > supports being monitored by SNMP. Problem is it does not have an > external battery connector. Has anyone had any luck adding external > batteries to a UPS like this? > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Open Range Closes: Broadband's Solyndra @$240M???
All I can say is That is one more potential HUGE competitor that is no longer going to be a threat to the small business WISP. The jingle that keeps ringing in my head is, "another one bites the dust, ah". What I ask is... Did RUS keep or get the Tax Payer's money back? Or did it get spent and lost? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: tsharp...@qorvus.com ; WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Open Range Closes: Broadband's Solyndra @$240M??? At 10/5/2011 05:46 PM, Tom Sharples wrote: Caution - this may make your ears bleed - strong language :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM Yeah, but under the rapper profanity, he displays a profound ignorance of macroeconomics and monetary policy. There's a reason that economics is called "the dismal science". It is not intuitively obvious, and is thus prone to demagoguery. Open Range, on the other hand, appears to be a simple case of JP Morgan's influence peddling to get a big loan for a risky venture from the Bush administration. I wonder if they will end up losing their bet, or if there is some trick in there to get JP Morgan Chase paid back. Note how Iridium was Motorola's idea, and lost several billion, but Motorola came out ahead (and Chase, being the marks that time, lost). On 10/5/2011 2:21 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/5/2011 04:20 PM, Rafman® wrote: Open Range Closes: http://www.dailywireless.org/2011/10/05/open-range-closes/ Broadband's Solyndra with $240M Federal Funds..? Interesting, but not surprising given the whole story. The RUS (part of the USDA) usually just funds incumbent LECs, not WISPs. In 2008, Open Range got $100M from JP Morgan Chase and then a bigger RUS loan. The plan was to use Globalstar's ATC frequencies. Globalstar was a low Earth orbit satellite (LEOsat) constallation launched in the late 1990s. I think Qualcomm was originally behind it; the idea was to be a simple bent-pipe repeater for CDMA satphones. They were competing with the uber-baroque Iridium network, which of course bombed miserably (I had a bit of an inside seat watching that failure; it was kind of funny). GlobalStar's original satellites kind of went haywire in 2007 and some of the replacements have been flaky too, which is not doing them a lot of good. Satellites were granted ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) rights as a way to fill in gaps in satellite coverage; later this was expanded to permit terrestrial-only users. That's what LightSquared is trying to do. Open Range made a deal to use GlobalStar's ATC, but something went wrong and the FCC revoked it in 2010. So Open Range has some license problems. All that money and no place to go. They were also trying to make a deal with LightSquared, but I think that was for MVNO use of the network, not frequency leases. I think the key difference between Open Range and your basic WISP is that Open Range wanted to play Wall Street's game: Take a lot of money, spend big and fast, and hope for a return. A WISPA member can't afford to waste money that way. I wonder if Open Range has much cash left. I don't see how they could have spent it without access to enough spectrum. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Pulling my hair out
At this point you dont know if 1) It was client traffic/usage or traffic type causing the problem. (streaming, DDOS, MAC level virus, etc) 2) Client Interference causing the problem. (For example hidden node) 3) Actually failing client hardware. 4) a Poor quality link, attempting to pass excessive traffic. 5) a software timing issue, or software config issue. (Is it running 802.11, or NStreme polling? A or N? Is there anything unique about this CPE set up? Improper bridging config? IP conflict?Enryption or not? ) I would start out by testing the problem link individually, to determine if the individual link performs OK. (That could require taking off other subs, which is not easy.) Maybe even ask the customer to unplug his Soho router or PC from the Outdoor radio's POE, so CPE radio is isolated from LAN traffic, and see if it causes any problems associated without customer's traffic. Then you can slow load up his CPE, to see at what points the sector starts to have issues. Does the trouble CPE have a lower RSSI ? Could it be being effected by interference sooner, because of link strength? You are looking for whether this radio is sending an excessive amount of TX retries, monopolizing AP's time, starving the other CPEs? or if its interference, and all CPE start having retries, when the trouble CPE is added back. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 8:52 PM Subject: [WISPA] Pulling my hair out > Earlier this week one of the APs running 900MHz with SR9 in RB433s with > RB133 and RB411 clients started dropping clients and they would come > right back. I tried different frequencies, etc. Then it cleared up in > the morning. OK, maybe it is RTK or the weather or ... > Happened again the next night night. Replaced the AP electronics, > antenna and 65' of LMR400. Nothing I did seemed to make a bit of > difference. I did have a couple of clients that were actually off wrong > sector, behind this one. Changed them to the proper AP this morning. > 5:30 tonight 2 customers called within 2 minutes. Both off the AP in > question. I looked. None of the 14 clients would stay registered for > more than 10 seconds. Wildest registration table I have ever watched. > Nothing seemed to make a difference. I finally moved everyone to the > access list and disabled them. Enabled them one-by-one. Found tow that > would drop and come back and then apparently knock down everyone else. > Left them disabled and enabled all the others. Let it run that way 1 > hour with no drops. Enabled on of the 2 clients that was disabled. It > has now been up for over 52 minutes. > Turn on the last one and all goes out to lunch. Turn it off and > everything is OK. > Obviously that CPE has a problem. > Two reasons for the post: > 1) Clients can cause the whole AP to misbehave. > 2) Anyone have any trouble shooting tips on how to know whether to > check AP or clients first? > > -- > Scott Reed > Owner > NewWays Networking, LLC > Wireless Networking > Network Design, Installation and Administration > > > > Mikrotik Advanced Certified > > www.nwwnet.net > (765) 855-1060 > (765) 439-4253 > (855) 231-6239 > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas
I sorta see it the opposite. Unfortuntately, I wont be able to make it. I regretably, will miss seeing everyone. But... I love Vegas, its a fabulous place, and a wonderful place for a show. In the past, I had a huge misconception about Vegas, that it was just about gambling and temptation. It may be about that to some, but its so much more than just that. There is so much to do entertainment wise, something for everyone. Its full of many wonderful restaurants, to enjoy new culinary experiences. And its actually quite affordable, if you know where to look. I find that most WISPs and Vendors work to hard, it goes with the job. Its an excellent opportunity for WISPs to learn, and take a break, an take a few evenings well earned, to enjoy life. I wish everyone going a wonderful time. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jeff Broadwick - Lists To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas I don't care for Vegas, but I can't wait to see everyone! Regards, Jeff ImageStream Sales Manager 800-813-5123 x106 -- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 7 days till Vegas Who is excited?! If you haven't gotten your preparations ready, do them NOW! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1410 / Virus Database: 1520/3929 - Release Date: 09/30/11 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] LIGOWAVE PTP24-2
The disadvantage of 5.8, is that you never know what you are gonna get until its up in the air, because you dont know the noise floor you'll see. The advantage of millimenter wave (I consider 24Ghz millimeter wave) is that the beam width is extremely narrow, and few people use it because of the distance limit, and difficulty to mount stationary. As well, it only allows low power ptp for everyone using the band, so you never have some unexpected high power PTP link or wide beam PtMP showing up to cause you interference like in 5.8G. So its often considered inteference-free, allthough it is possible to get interference. In general you can expect to get full radio speed. Millimeter wave can go far, out in the dry desert. But in high rain zones, it does not. I never recommend over 2 miles with 24Ghz and 2ft dishes in Mid East coast rain zones. For 20km and high capacity, I'd still suggest Licensed, since licensed gear is getting more affordable every day, and there again, you get full radio speed, because you know the noise floor and link budget in advance. With UBNT MIMO (dual pol) and 20Mhz channels, 5.8G, and a noise free channel, 2ft dish, you can get as much as 80mbps HDX. But I never count on more than 40mbps HDX, until after I know the noise floor for the link, considering typical noise floors I often see in my areas. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Bob Moldashel To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] LIGOWAVE PTP24-2 Not on a 10 Mb channel and not in the 5.4 Ghz band. The distance is too great. If you go to 5.8 GHz. band you will need to use a 32 MHz. channel. -B- On 9/28/2011 1:30 PM, Julius Igugu wrote: Hi, How does this perform under very noisy conditions/interference? I have a UBNT Rocket M5 on a 20.3km link signal with 10MHz channel size is about -60dBm on both ends and can only do about 30Mbps one way. Will the Exalt perform better? I need at least 50Mbps full duplex. Thanks for any suggestions. Julius Igugu Lightning Networks On 9/27/2011 7:57 PM, Me wrote: 5.4 GHz has to be open. Use an Exalt link on 5:4 and you can get up to 440 aggregate with an 80/20 traffic split. Much cheaper than a Ligowave W4 Ghz Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless -Original message- From: Nick W To: WISPA General List Sent: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 18:47:55 GMT+00:00 Subject: Re: [WISPA] LIGOWAVE PTP24-2 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/ -- Best Regards. Julius Igugu 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] Licensed Backhaul
Cost effective depends on your goals. Its nice to see products comming out like APEX9, enabling $6900/link pricing standard, which are fully feauture rich to latest standards. 366mbps is a lot of bandwdith for most people. And companies like Solectek offering discounts on their older generation model, that are still good upto 300mb, and had amazing even lower pricing.(note they also have new generatin products) Those are all great examples of more "cost effective". However, I'd like to point out Trango BRoadband's latest models that support Compression and that they are awesome. The compression really works at less than 1ms, and I've seen anywhere from 1.5 to 4X capacity increase compressed, allthough spec sheets tend to advertise 2x to be conservative. Its obviously more cost effective to buy 1 radio with Compression, than 2 radios without to get the same speed, if need more capacity than 1 radio can provide, or if you cant find another free channel or large channel. What do you do if you wanted a 50mhz channel, but you only found a 30mhz one available in your freq coordination? The answer is use a radio with compression. Whats most cost effective, is getting the best $ per mb, not necessarilly best $ per link, and knowing that each MB is a resource that can be resold for a higher reoccurring profit. More bandwdith equals more potential profit. You need to consider your site requirements, and labor involved. Its more cost effective, to put up an all-outdoor CAT5 Licensed radio unit, if replacing a pre-existing all-outdoor CAT5 5.8G link, being able to re-use preexisting cabling. Or if you are paying for colo space per months, its more cost effective to use a little POE indoors mounted to a wall, instead of a rack. You could easilly assess a $2000 cost savings on install labor and supplies selecting an all-outdoor unit instead of Split archetecture. In the long run, you might find a split archetecture to be more cost effective, considering you only have to stock one model of Indoor Unit for all freqs and all sides of links, if the IDU was designed as a multi-band type. If you bought one brand of radio for every link, you might see a cost savings in NOC support labor and development, as software OS and training became standardized network wide. I can tell you the first step is to define the need. Second step is defining what product will be most costeffect to solve that need. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Blake Covarrubias To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed Backhaul We have quite a few Trango licensed radios. They work well. Latency is usually under 1ms for each hop. -- Blake Covarrubias On Sep 29, 2011, at 12:16, Josh Luthman wrote: Most if not all of the licensed backhauls are very solid and very good. I have a SAF link that is working well. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Marco Coelho wrote: Exalt has a nice product line. How much bandwidth and how far are you trying to go are good places to start. mc On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 11:00 AM, John M. Nix wrote: We are thinking of changing our core backhaul from 5.8 Ghz to a Licensed solution. Just wondering what the most cost effective solution would be without losing a great deal of quality. John Nix CSWEB Support Team www.csweb.net 918-235-0414 j...@cnetworksolutions.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/ -- Marco C. Coelho Argon Technologies Inc. POB 875 Greenville, TX 75403-0875 903-455-5036 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ ---
Re: [WISPA] WDS compatibility between UBNT AP and MT CPE
Also note... For compatibilty you need to consider what freq talking about (for example 900 UBNT not compartible w/ MT 900) and MIMO versus legacy in discussing compatibilty. Typical UBNT MIMO APs w/ Airmax did not support other 802.11a/N CPEs, until a recent firmware, in which need to ask UBNT for. As well there may be some limits on which features are supported on each platform's WDS. For example, if WPA works with WDS. But as far as just WDS, my understanding is that UBNT and MIKROTIK will work togeather. Mikrotik's comparable modes are WDS AP and WDS-SLAVE and WDS Station. Many Mikrotik Firmwares had issues with WDS Station, even between MT APs and MT CPEs. So important to use current Firmwares, where WDS Station works properly. I've found WDS-Station on MT ver 5 to work pretty reliably. With UBNT, their WDS always seemed to work great no issues ever. This is actually an important issue, because Mikrotik has much more flexible CPE options with their many multi port (ethernet and mpci) models. If using WDS on Mikrotik, I highly recommend fast CPUs, expecially if running N modes. I've seen as much as 30% more CPU utilization with WDS, on slower CPUs. When we used MT, we bridged with WDS almost everything. Use the 680mhz boards, not the 300mhz, when you can.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Troy Settle To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 11:00 AM Subject: [WISPA] WDS compatibility between UBNT AP and MT CPE I have 0 experience with UBNT gear (other than their wireless cards), so I'm hoping someone here can provide some basic guidance. I'm looking at replacing MT access points (straight 802.11 w/WDS) to UBNT. Are there any WDS compatibility issues between MT clients and UBNT access points? Ultimately, we can do without WDS, but only if there's a suitable alternative for transparent bridging (I'm pretty sure MT's station-bridge mode does NOT work with non-MT access points). Thanks, -- Troy Settle, Network Administrator The Wired Road Authority 1117 E. Stuart Dr. Galax, VA 24333 (276) 238-0049 (office) (276) 237-3890 (cell) tset...@thewiredroad.net -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT
Actually, let me be more clear The Wikipedia chart lists the first 802.11N MCS0-32 modes standard. The heading "spacial streams" is somewhat mislabeled, and really means "data spacial streams", infering that additiaonl data streams can be enabled if they are spacially apart to allow it. But really that column is representing numberof unique data streams supported. Modes 0-32 standard specifies "the number of data streams supported" for each mode. But no where does it reference the number of antennas that are specified or required to meet the standard. That I would assume would mean that it is left up to the manufacturer to deside. Wikipedia was clear on how to define MIMO. (A x B : C) A=max number of TR antenna supported B=max number if RCV antennas supported C=max number of data streams supported. 2x2:1 would mean two antennas both that could transmit and receive, but only one data stream, so same data would go across both antennas. 2x2:2 would mean two antennas for tx and rcv, and supports maximum of 2 different unique data streams, to double capacity. 1x1:1 would mean one antenna for tx and one for recv, and supports one data stream. The key here is "max". What is a radio capable of if it isn't configured to do the max? UBNT Mimo supports 2x2:2 in its max configuration, which is enabled by choosing modes MCS 8-15. Thats a known fact. But no where is it documented what happens when select MCS0-7. Does UBNT become a 1x1:1, 2x2:1, 1x2:1, 2x1:1 radio? Thats up to UBNT. Technically the N standard doesn't care one way or the other. All that matters to the standard is how many unique data streams it needs to listen for, and allowed to transmit. Its irrelevent which antenna method gets utilized to get the signal there. To the radio it only distniguishes only the unique data streams. How many antennas used to send one data stream will change the received signal strength, but again the radio's mode doesn't care or isn;t dependant on it because, it is what it is that it hears, with the receiver antenna hearing everything that is in the air regardless of what transmitted it. (That obviously changes in 4x4 or 3x3 modes, since there are only two polarities available, and the additional streams must be achieved via some other spatial method other than polarity such as "space or time" spatial. Anyway, thats why MIMO is confusing. Because there are many options left up to the manufacture, that rarely show up defined on spec sheets. And I find few manufacturer tech support people know the answer when asked which all antenna modes are supported and configurable with their product. They immediately jump to MCS-0-15 that specify only modulation and coding, not antenna selection. Anotehr thing to note, MCS is not limited to 32, there are more. Atleast 64, maybe more modes. I beleive some of the higher modes add teh functionality for two chains to operate at different modes or modulations. I personally feel that functionality is one of the most important features for outdoor professional deployment of MIMO wireless, both to not waste spectrum (operate at highest reliable spectral efficiency per polarity at all times), and to reduce risk of using dual polarity (survive interference per polarity). For some reason the industry has not yet embraces that feature of the standard. It is more complex to consider the higher combinations of having mismatched modulation per polarity. Currently in mode 0-15, both chains must operate on the same modulation, if one chain switches modulation, so does the other. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] UBNT
Now that you know what the MCS standard is, now you just need to figure out
whether the manufacturer followed the standard.
There is no law that says they need to, and it could be considered a value
add to improve on it.
A perfect example is the discussion I was having simultaneously in the 900
thread.
Does the radio TX on both antenna polarities when in mode MCS 0-7?
One party stated they though selection MCS 0-7, disabled transmission on the
second polarity.
According to the "standard", it should transmit on both polarities in
MCS0-7. Single Chain having the meaning of 1 data set. Where in MCS0-7 the
"same" data set would be transmitted accross both polarities creating two
spacial streams of the same data, with an attempt to reduce error rate, but
not increase speed, other than allow a higher modulation because less error
rate.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Canary"
To: "WISPA General List"
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT
> Thank you, that's the most (and the best) info I have gotten on the UBNT
> from anyone.
>
> Could you explain what the "MCS is, and why one would use it?
>
> Robert Canary
> OCDirect Electrical-Datacomm
> (866) 594-0786 Fax
> (270) 955-0362 Voice
>
> - Original Message -
>> At 9/25/2011 02:23 PM, Robert Canary wrote:
>> >Keeping a link active versus maintaining throughput under divers
>> >conditions is two different things. For the money paid I would go
>> >with something like Alvarion. But then again, after 12 years, I
>> >would not invest big dollars in CPE or Access points. Only in the
>> >backhauls and infrastructures.
>> >
>> >The only reason I have not went UBNT, I have found much feed back on
>> >how they deal with interference, I like Frequency Hopper (FH) they
>> >keep a decent link through the most divers environments. But how
>> >does UBNT deal with interference?
>>
>> UBNT uses chips that are essentially software-defined radios. They
>> implement the 802.11 G, A and N modulation. G and A are a fairly
>> simple OFDM. -N is an OFDM with MIMO capability and some additional
>> features. FH and DS are both older spread spectrum techniques; OFDM
>> is wideband, but not really spread spectrum.
>>
>> The N specs in particular (which work on both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands)
>> include a lot of modulation options ("MCS"). So you can select the
>> modulation that works best on the link in question, and choose 5, 10,
>> 20 or 40 MHz channels.
>>
>> --
>> Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
>> ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
>> +1 617 795 2701
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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] DMCA Takedown
Our new policy is to ignore it, and not respond. 99% of them are automated, so they dont even know if you didn't respond, and responding just creates evidence that maybe you are aware of a violation, and thus more on their radar to harass. If we respond, we have a template response, that is basically "Due to our privacy policy, we will only disclose information or take action in cases where an offical subpoena has been provided through a court order or valid law inforcement agency." If there is reason to suggest that we should disclose some information, such as that our upstream carrier is requiring us to make a response, we say something similar to... "This IP is behind NAT, and We do not currently have a mechanism in place to determine the identity of the user of the IP." With that said, we do investigate internally almost all requests. These requests are good to help give clue that a customer might have a Virus of some sort. Many movie downloads are not intentional. We will almost always notify a downstreme user of the report. We will almost always briefly look at traffic to determine if further action should be taken to investigate, to protect network performance. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Andy Trimmell To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 1:16 PM Subject: [WISPA] DMCA Takedown How do you all respond to these takedowns? Do we need to respond back to our provider with anything? We've just been passing the information onto the customer in jeopardy. Are we doing all of our part? Most of the time its kids downloading games. So we send the parents an email and phone call talking about the takedown request. Is that enough or should we be responding to the provider that we contacted the pesky kids that foiled everything? Thanks Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 -- 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] Weekend Politics that Make Sense
To explain my mentality on that... I believe most congressman are people with good intentions who want to do good for their state, and effect posititve change. Intentions are always good. If they weren't they never would have got into politics in the first place. Many have high ethical morals, to fight for the cause, and never consider selling out their beliefs. Most people when they have a decent amount of money that affords them a fine basic life without to much compromise, its usually enough, for them to stay strong to their morals. The issue comes when a congressman has to choose between his family and his constituents. Family will always be more important to a congressman that is also a mother or father. They want to provide for their family to the best of their abilty. They want to get their kids in a good college. Etc etc. What I've observed is that most corruption doesn't happen for millions or billions of dollars of profit for the guy that looked the other way. Its usually a few thousand here or there of indirect benefits, that starts to add up. Saving a $1000 here or there helps. Sometimes, the corrupted person doesn't even realise they are being corrupt, it just sneaks up on them. Maybe it was just pulling a strong to get a kid accpeted to a school. Or maybe a trip that gets doubled as a vacation. But I beleive that if a salary will cover every basic expense their familiy will want to have a good life, and the politician never has to consider, "if I do this, how will it effect my familly", than it makes it a much easy decission for hte politician. Then it just becomes greed against morals. And most politicians, care more about public opinion and their status in a community, which is more valuable than a buck here or there. When people get corrupt, its also often because they feel discruntled or that something is owed to them for their hard work, and never received what they deserved through the standard legal methods, for their hard work. If making the laws for billions of people is not important enough to get a high salary what in the world possibly would be? I know self employed truck drivers without a high scool diploma that have made $150k per year. Shouldn't an untouchable uncorruptable highly educated and publically supported politician be able to do better? Why should a football player make millions and a politician that got elected by million only get middle class? IF good educated men can make better money going into business or being another lawyer, why would they waste their time in congress? How do we get the best people into congress? Quite honestly, I beleive a congressman has earned their right to a better life, and their employer, (the government and taxpayer) should pay for it. So much rides on the decission of a congressman. Billions of dollars are influenced daily. Whats a few extra thousand going to the decission maker, that upheld his morals to represent his constituents? The problem with politicians is not their paycheck. The problem is their lack of understanding of the issues to make informed decissions. Or that they are on the take by big money lobbiest, and make the wrong decissions for the wrong reasons. How does one combat that? Not by attacking the congressman's paycheck. The answer is good solid clever lobbying that gains the congressman's symnpthee, and preys on his ability to execute sound judgement for the right reasons, the reasons he got into politics in the first place. What I'm not against is putting a limit on how much money political parties can receive from a lobbiest or constituent. I'm all for reducing the paycheck to a party, and reducing the power of the big money lobbiest. But not against legitimate salary pay to a congressman specifically. The American dream is that those that try harder go farther. Politicians have just as much of a right to be a beneficiary of the American Dream. And its should be shown to the public, so young kids will say to themselves, "one day maybe I'll be a congressman, and make a difference, and provide for my family well", instead of what ever profession could make them the highest dollar. And I tell you, the average Harvard or Ivy League law school graduate's target career salary isn't typically under $170 per year. We give politicians a hard time. But the truth is, its a demanding high paced job. Heck, they'd have to pay me atleast $170k just for the requirement to wear that noose (tie) around my neck, and straight jacket (suit) throughout the hot summer months. Just my opinion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Josh Luthman To: WISPA General List Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense Because that's what p
Re: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense
I personally think congress man should be paid more, so they are less likely to take bribes behind the scene, (or similar principle as bribes that might still be legal) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cliff Leboeuf To: FISPA Members List ; WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:28 AM Subject: [WISPA] Weekend Politics that Make Sense Should members of Congress cut their salaries or raise the age at which they can draw a congressional pension when many Americans are making personal sacrifices during the country's prolonged economic crisis? A congressman makes $174,000 a year. However, that may not be enough for one freshman who said he's finding it hard to get by on his salary. Call/email your representative and make it know that this idea is worthy of passing. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/16/congress.salary/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 -- 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] Bulk text alerts
The reason is that you want to have targeted announcements. You dont want to remind customers that are running reliably, that you constantly have problems on other parts of your network, when you need to notify those other parts of your network. I also dont want customers putting themselves on lists, because I want to make sure they are only on the lists that will apply to them, and they might not have the inside knowledge to know which lists those are. I also dont want competitors on the list, seeing info that isn't any of their business. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Dorn Hetzel To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bulk text alerts +1: Any reason not to just use twitter? On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Joel Barnard wrote: We use twitter. Customers who are interested in network status updates can follow the Twitter page, and subscribe to text messages. When there’s a problem you just tweet manually or use API for automated things. Joel Barnard Niagara Wireless Internet Co. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Patrick D. Nix, Jr Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Bulk text alerts Does anyone use or know of an application or service for sending bulk text messages. We would like a one time pay vs. pay per message. What we would like to accomplish is create a group message for network status alerts that go out via text message to customers that wish to receive such. Thanks, Patrick Nix, Jr., Computer Network Solutions CSWEB.NET Internet Services IT Manager http://www.cnetworksolutions.com http://www.csweb.net (918) 235-0414 Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. 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] Press Release
All I can say is WOW! Congradulation. You make the WISP industry proud. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:38 PM Subject: [WISPA] Press Release Microserv, Inc Reaches 10,000 Subscriber Milestone September 1, 2011 Microserv, Inc. announced today that the company has reached a subscriber milestone by surpassing 10,000 active internet subscribers. This number of subscribers is an exciting number for privately owned companies serving rural America with high-speed internet services. Travis Johnson, Microserv CEO stated "This has been my goal for the last ten years. Reaching this number of subscribers in the rural markets we serve is a great accomplishment. The entire company is proud that we have grown to this size, and continue to grow each and every month." Johnson added "Our services areas are some of the most competitive in the nation, and we incur some of the highest expenses in the nation. We have grown because of our superior customer service. We answer every incoming call during business hours with a live person. No auto attendants, no voicemail. We listen to our customers and they value that kind of service." About Microserv Microserv is a regional provider of internet access services covering all of southeastern Idaho and parts of Wyoming. Microserv is a member of the Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association (WISPA), and was awarded the 2007 WISP Operator of the Year. Microserv has over 14 years of experience as a fixed wireless and wireline provider. Services offered include fixed wireless, DSL, fiber optic and domain hosting. Microserv currently has over 95 tower locations and covers over 25,000 square miles of southeastern Idaho and parts of Wyoming. The entire network is owned and maintained by Microserv with no use of any outside vendors for backhaul or maintenance. Microserv is a privately held Idaho corporation with no outside investors or capital. It has never applied or received any type of local, state or federal government loan, grant, subsidy or stimulus money and has been profitable since the incorporation in 1997. For more information about Microserv, visit www.microserv.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] Licensed PTMP
The answer to your questions does not have a generic answer. If your area is highly rural, there might be options. But to find out, you'd likely have to spend some money to get a spectrum search done to find it, if it exists. Licensed PtMP spectrum is not accessible to most, in most areas, as you stated, it takes Billions at auction. But there someimes is the option to sub-lease spectrum from spectrum licensees, if they have not already leased it out. EBS is one example, often owned by local school systems previously. Some spectrum ranges were sold in small geograpghical blocks, so leaving it unused in some small rural towns. Most cell carriers already found the vacant spectrum and leased it, like much of the 2.5Ghz spectrum used by Sprint/Clearwire. One way to find it is to go to FCC website, and do a geosearch for spectrum owners within a radius of your area. Then manually call them all, to ask if they are using it, and would be interested in sub-leasing it if not. That can be a tedius process for someone not familiar with it all. There are only two resources I know of to refer you to. 1) I belive WISPA's attorney, Steve Coran, has helped some companies find licensed spectrum. 2) I believe SpectrumBridge databases unused spectrum, and helps prospective leasee find leasors. > We're in Carroll and Grayson Counties in SW VA. I just can't see a business > case for investing in licensed wireless for 21k houses in 900 sq miles Not necessarilly. You'd never be able to serve 21K homes with unlicensed. Often spectrum owners buy national licenses because they want to cheey pick the prime markets, and might not have built out the most rural markets, and never plan to. Thus there is a model for the spectrum to be sub-let to a partner that will buildout the rural network, and actually has an interest to. Most WISPs cant afforf licensed spectrum because they start out serving 200 homes within 21k, not 21k homes. Buying small area licensing actually helps buying licenses more affordably because it allows a smaller dollar sale, more within the realm of what a small provider could secure financially. Often spectrum is valued by an equivellent method, such as # of homes served, thus a small area license would cost the same as a large area license from a "per person" cost. With that said, I have no idea what kind of spectrum might or might not be available in your area. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Troy Settle To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed PTMP Any frequency really, I'm just curious as to what's available and how much it costs (licensing and equipment). From what I've read, FCC auctions go for millions per license. way out of reach for us. I understand that there are some shared frequencies that are available for PTP links (6,11,18,22,whatever), but are these any good for PTMP? Mostly, I'm trying to get the information I need to get my bosses to lay off the idea of using licensed frequencies for the last mile. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:04 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed PTMP What frequency? On 8/30/2011 9:57 AM, Troy Settle wrote: My bosses keep asking me about licensed PTMP systems. With licensed PTP systems running into thousands of dollars, I'm not sure I want to see the price tag of a PTMP system, but I have to do as the bosses say. Any help out there? Thank you, -- Troy Settle, Network Administrator The Wired Road Authority 1117 E. Stuart Dr. Galax, VA 24333 (276) 238-0049 (office) (276) 237-3890 (cell) tset...@thewiredroad.net WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe:http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.or
Re: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping?
All I can say is 1) With Contracts at $5 million dollars per state, and multiple states, Connected NAtions sure as heck should have skilled staff and reliable flexible methods, with that much money thown at it. No disrespect meant, just stating, thats a lot of money. 2) Its good to hear that Connected Nation has taken such positive steps in their efforts on mapping. . Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Spann, Chip To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:18 PM Subject: [WISPA] Providing data to NTIA for Broadband mapping? Connected Nation employs actual wireless engineers, most of whom have 25+ years of experience in EBS, BRS, WCS, AWS, LMDS, PCS and unlicensed wireless bands. Most of us have also been WISPs ourselves and, to that end, we understand your business quite well. Radio Mobile is one of the propagation modeling tools we use but we also have 5 licensed copies of EDX Signal and Signal Pro. We have tested and used MapInfo, CelPlan, Splat and more than a dozen other wireless propagation modeling tools. Mr. Webster states that his methodology is easy to use and understand. Some states have neither methodology nor staff for addressing fixed wireless. Perhaps our methodology is more complex yet, at the end of the day, state mapping agents are required to effectively deliver the same product to NTIA. I head up the fixed wireless and mobile wireless user group at NTIA and have a published white paper explaining our rather long, but exceptionally detailed, methodology and would be happy to share it with this group upon request. Finally, some mapping agents (like our company) go beyond simply creating a theoretical propagation model - we do conduct static field tests and compile data at hundreds of points during drive tests. Last year we drove over 100,000 miles last year, spectrum analyzer and CPE in hand, conducting tests and using the data to refine our propagation models. However, nothing is as important than the relationship between the mapping agent and the WISP. In the states where we are engaged, we spend a great deal of time talking to and working with the WISPs so that we have a keen understanding of their system BEFORE we create propagation models. Charles "Chip" Spann Director - Engineering & Technical Services Connected Nation (270) 799-0448 csp...@connectednation.org -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire
In support of your points On the news the other day, they pointed out a dituation where the city of Wash DC is having the cops harrass the Bicycle Taxis, and got Politions on the record saying that they are trying to find a way to regulate them. The count is something like 50 total bucycle Taxi across the city. Isn't this a bit extreme and wasteful to go after a few bicycle riders? They literally work hard to give others enjoyment, a public good. My point here is... if the government can see it, they will try to regulate it. Thats what governments do, they regulate things. The government really needs to stop, they are sticking their nose into way to many businesses, taking regulation to a point of harrasment instead of a public good. Its the whole thing about making regulation in search of a problem, instead of the proper way which is indentifying a clear problem and regulating to solve it. Or in my opinion, to get out of the way and let the free market solve it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK To: WISPA General List Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire Mark, you seem to think that what I'm advocating is a 'dream' or some kind of old fashioned fantasy. To correct your mistake here, I must point out that the "system" you seem to want to continue has brought this nation to the brink of bankrtuptcy, destroyed our industrial and scientific base, our technology base has eroded, our information age has enabled our competitors now, and we're rapidly proceeding to a nation full of people who feed each other at mcdonald's, mow each other's lawns, provide internet, and lend each other money - or, in terms of reality, a fantasy. The history of our current telecom industry points to only one thing... Congress is wholesale inept at regulating business, services or industry. We have 5 bazillion laws, all being targeted for efforts to gain advantage for this or that segment, or for this, or against that industry. While we have played in the tide pools, away from the ocean sized breakers of Congressional and Federal controls, it has abundantly clear that what is going on is not sustainable, not good, not even faintly viable. I am not advocating a fantasy... I am advocating a restoration of the PROPER governance our constitution provided and served us so incredibly well while we stuck to it. And, has done such immense damage when we ignored it. I am confused about why you think that WISPA and all other ISP organizations should not propose a clear philosophical message that FREE MARKETS WORK. Duhh, we know they do, we compete as best we can, hobbled by the regulatory structure that grants others certain advantages, etc. There's NOTHING wrong with the idea that Congress should set about undoing the sins of the last generations. Furthermore, as someone said, WISPA itself should, just because it is an advocacy organization, have a clear and unambiguous philosophy on what the organization is going to advocate for, not just WHO it advocates for - and I recall the heated discussions on that topic. ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- 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] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas
oblem with a parabolic, because the parabolic dish is just a reflector and positioned farther away from the feed receive element, apposed to the panel backplain that might interfact with the RF field because of proximity. With OFDM MIMO the bigger concern is going to be colocation self interference with other antennas. So if mounting several antennas at a sight, you'll want an antenna with good Front to back and sharp cut-off on edges, with minimal side lobes as possible. To compare a [arabolic to PAnel, you'd need to look at the antenna patterns, not sure which is better fif the two are the same gain. (for example 26db parabolic versus 26db panel). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jawad A Hai To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas Hello Josh, What antennas did you use? Flate Panel or Dish (MIMO), ? What is your Radio that goes with ARC ?? did you get a chance to use other brands beside ARC ? http://en.jirous.com/antenna-5ghz/jrc-29-dx-pr http://www.lanbowan.com/products/en_vpro.asp?id=707 From: Josh Luthman Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 10:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] PtP Flat Panel and MiMo Dish Antennas I like ARC Wireless, been happy with them. Never heard of Lanbowan or Jirous. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jawad A Hai wrote: Hello, I have posted below in several forums without success, I will appreciate if you some body can advise me. Hi, This is my first post in the forum.( have posted in mikrotik and ddwrt without any luck ) I wanted to know what antennas users/Pros use for PtP needs.(Apart from UBNT) Both Flat Panel and MiMO dish as well as Panel. i was looking at different companies like Lanbowan, Jirous, ARCWireless. Lanbowan has 27 dbi Flat Panel, which others are not offering. ARC has got good reviews on mikrotik forum but jirous has got best port to port isolation(MIMO). Can you all please share your thoughts on antennas. Cuz a good Radio is nothing without a good antenna. My requirement is to have a good PtP links distance from 10-50 KMs range in very crowded environments. I have been trying different brands with different results and its difficult to test the brands in live environments, just thinking to take an advise here on the forum and buy the same and test it. Its not about just one link or two, i needed some permanent vendor. Thank YOu 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] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training
HA HA HA Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Gino Villarini" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training > Hey PR was the star of the show! LOL! > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > 787.273.4143 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 6:35 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training > > yeah, that will be helpful if Slides are published on WISPA web site > somewhere. > The slides had some useful links to FCC Knowledge base documents. > I made the mistake of logging in at the last minute assuming gotomeeting > wouldn;t require any updates since I've used it before, but missed the > first half, as it took 20 minutes or so to finish all the softwre updates > before I could join. Next time, I know to login 20 minutes early :-) > > Overall it was a nice "educational" session on 5.4G. > > Its always discouraging though, because it reminds us that most of the > gear many of us use and like to use would never get certified for 5.4 or > 5,3 under the current software models. > It was clarified that nothing prohibits software developers from using > their own software on certified hardware components, but reminds us that > that does not authorize the use of self software that does not follow the > rules. One rule being software cant have access to any driver setting that > could be changed to disable compliance, such as ability to change country > code. > More or less indirectly making the use of Open Source illegal in its > current state, unless first compiled with options removed that allow > changing driver settings that could compromise compliance. > > Note that does not mean that Mikrotik/UBNT is illegal operating at 5.8G if > certified for 5.8Ghz use. But it means it wont be certified for 5.4G, > unless software is restricted further. > > One of the interesting points was that not only is it illegal to use a > higher gain antenna than ceertified with, but ALSO illegal to use a LOWER > gain antenna than certified with. This has to do with DFS certified by > minimim antenna gain. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)" > To: "WISPA General List" > Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:04 AM > Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training > > >> Just wondering How many are going to join the "What's legal, what's >> not" webinar today? >> >> marlon >> >> >> >> >> 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] The Legislative Situation Is Dire
It should be noted that the today that we face is not neceesarilly an indication of a bad thing. It was just a fork in the road, and the big telco lobbiests reached the fork shortly before us. What we have here is a chance to make a meaningful permanent change on spectrum policy. A fast track that doesn;t come along often. Congress has that power. But with every opportunity there also comes risk attached, and the risk is great if we are not at the top of our game. This is NOT the time to be weak, it is the time that demands strength and persistence. This is where we say, we dont give up and aren't willing to go away, and we simply aren't going to let congress try to take our innovative drive away. And where we have the courage and responsibilty to call it like we see it, and not accept when the FCC does wrong, we also have the equal obligation to defend our FCC that we have intemently interacted with over the years. When I testified on NetNEutrality for the republicans, ATT claimed to be for the NetNeutrality rules. The republicans, dragged out the truth that ATT did NOT like the rules, they just agreed that they were less harmful than the rules could have been, and they were willing to reduce risk, and except less harmful rules. The republicans were quick to use that to there advantage and argue that "settling for less harmful" should not be adequate testimony to contitute being in favor of, and that we should have rules that benefit us, not just that are less harmful, if we are to have successful broadband policy. I see no reason we cant use that same arguement against the House committee. Right now, the majority bill is horrid. So we show more support for the minority companion bill that is less harmful. Allthough we can agree and testify that the new minority bill is less harmful and preverable than the other, we can not loose focus that both bills are harmful in some capacity. We need to tell congress what we honestly really think, and we need a stronger stance. A very very relevent point is that there has been an eight year public open process on whitespace where 3 administrations had been involved ans all concluded the value of unlicensed and allocation of Whitespace to unlicensed in significant capacity. For congress to undermine that would be undermining public opinion. There is proof, 8 years of FCC records showing that the FCC's decission represented the public interests. Congresss has an obligation to represent the public interest. I would argue that the only evidence that we need to support our claim is submit FCC historical record as evidence. In my opinion, ignoring that evidence in favor of big money lobbyiest, or to assist with poor federal budgeting, would be corruption. The bills are scary, but that does not mean we have to let them pass. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Forbes Mercy" To: ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 9:03 AM Subject: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire > TO WISP's > > I'm not much of an alarmist and I would never claim the sky is falling > unless I had positive proof. Right now WISPA is faced with what I > perceive as the most serious threat to our industry to date. Some of > you may complain that the FCC is an overreaching intruder into our > business. While Federal Government oversight and regulations into our > rapidly growing industry may seem intrusive WISPA has always had their > ear and we feel they listen and include us into much of their decision > making process. There is no doubt they truly want nation-wide service > and recognize the lack of enthusiastic expansion by major players > (legacy carriers) into the rural area which is our strongest argument. > > Starting with Net Neutrality we noticed that Congress was starting to > politicize the work of the FCC. Some of you thought that was a good > thing since you felt the FCC was slow in releasing frequencies. The > micro-management of the FCC on that first issue has rapidly grown to > full fledged taking over of the FCC's mission. Once the legacy > characters found that they could go around the FCC to Congress, where > they already give millions in "donations", they knew they had one big > leg up on small budget organizations like WISPA. They are now flexing > their full lobbying muscle by getting some 'friends' in Congress to > introduce bills that would freeze any future expansion of the WISP > market locking us out of the lower frequencies that we need to penetrate > vegetation and terrain. Much like teaching the Internet to your parents > other legislators look at the new laws with dazed amazement and just say > OK not realizing the ramifications and listening to the lobbyist sp
Re: [WISPA] [Spam] FCC 5.4 gig training
yeah, that will be helpful if Slides are published on WISPA web site somewhere. The slides had some useful links to FCC Knowledge base documents. I made the mistake of logging in at the last minute assuming gotomeeting wouldn;t require any updates since I've used it before, but missed the first half, as it took 20 minutes or so to finish all the softwre updates before I could join. Next time, I know to login 20 minutes early :-) Overall it was a nice "educational" session on 5.4G. Its always discouraging though, because it reminds us that most of the gear many of us use and like to use would never get certified for 5.4 or 5,3 under the current software models. It was clarified that nothing prohibits software developers from using their own software on certified hardware components, but reminds us that that does not authorize the use of self software that does not follow the rules. One rule being software cant have access to any driver setting that could be changed to disable compliance, such as ability to change country code. More or less indirectly making the use of Open Source illegal in its current state, unless first compiled with options removed that allow changing driver settings that could compromise compliance. Note that does not mean that Mikrotik/UBNT is illegal operating at 5.8G if certified for 5.8Ghz use. But it means it wont be certified for 5.4G, unless software is restricted further. One of the interesting points was that not only is it illegal to use a higher gain antenna than ceertified with, but ALSO illegal to use a LOWER gain antenna than certified with. This has to do with DFS certified by minimim antenna gain. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509-982-2181)" To: "WISPA General List" Cc: "Principal WISPA Member List" Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:04 AM Subject: [Spam] [WISPA] FCC 5.4 gig training > Just wondering How many are going to join the "What's legal, what's > not" webinar today? > > marlon > > > > > 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] 100 Mb/S usable 1 mile distance Microwave needed
The Solotek gear on promo will work well, but it maxes out at 128QAM, split archetecture, and I'm pretty sure is not adaptive modulation. So... You should engineer the reliabilty you need as fixed modulation. But for only a 100mbps link, that could be a perfect solution for you. Also, Trango is offering good deals on older stock APEX models, now that they have their new line, if they still have stock. Worth a call. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Ralph" To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:37 AM Subject: [WISPA] 100 Mb/S usable 1 mile distance Microwave needed >I know that every so often Trango mails out something and so do others but >I > haven't seen anything lately. > Anyone know is there is a great deal on anywhere for a licensed pair that > will doo 100 Mb/S usable both ways for about a mile. > It is for the City, so the license will be free. > > Ralph > r...@brightlan.net > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP
To clarify. 1) Linux routers are plenty good for Enterprise. My point was that its a harder sell to sell them a product they dont know, when there could be many third party trusted advisors chiming in with an opinion that contradicts yours. But no doubt Linux routers can be very power and very stable. 2) I dont like to get into the Imagestream vs Mikrotik war, as they are both very nice products. One difference is the Mikrotik is a closed platform, and Imagestream is an open platform with manufacturer support. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 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] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP
Jim, Thats the way to make a sale. I dont see Cisco or Juniper offering that kind of quality support. Roman, If this is for you, and you are only needing less than 10- 300mbps of bandwidth for small to medium need, do yourself a favor, and save your money, and save your time, and go buy a MIkrotik. It will do everything you need, and let you spend your time on making sales, where you need to be spending your time. You will simply save loads and loads of money with Mikrotik. And there really are some good support folk who are also on this list, that you can hire if you get in a bind. If this is something that you are selling to someone else, then its a different story. Its sorta like banks that have IBM PCs sitting on the lobby front desk, but in the back room out of sight, they got all PC clones doing all the heavy lifting. When selling to someone else, budget is not always the biggest concern, expecially when selling to Etnerprise customers. There are other issues like accountability, and hiring techs that might already be familiar with a platform. For example ever john Doe out of computer school likely has had Cisco training. Often your buyers also will be people who have had that Cisco training, and looking for name brand. Juniper is an alternate choice for Cisco. The kind of people that buy Junipoer and Cisco are never going to be interested in a Vyatta, Mikrotik, or ImageStream. Its to risky for them leaving the name brand. But most smaller businesses are going to be fine with what ever you recommend, and Image stream and Mikrotlk both have wonderful solutions for small business. I personally, use our own distro of Linux. The reason is I already put in my time learning how to do it on Linux by hand, and can. My custom solution costs me about $1200-1500 in hardware for the latest XEON 5520 platform, and can push almost 10Gb. I dont recomend that to others, unless they have the staff that is already knolwedageable with Linux and common ISP open source applications. If you are pushing multiple gigs, then you've likely grown the complexity of what you do as a provider, and to select the best product, you really need to have a better idea on your network design goals. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jim Patient To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP Roman, If you would like to give me a call, I will set you up a read only account on a live running Powerouter 732 and give you a quick tour of Mikrotik RouterOS. This router is running IPv6 and BGP with multiple peers on the WAN and OSPF on the LAN side. It also has a pretty extensive firewall and quite a few bandwidth queues, tunnels, etc. This router has been in service over 4 years now. Jim Patient Link Technologies, Inc. 314-735-0270 ext. 102 www.linktechs.net or http://ipv6.linktechs.net/ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Roman Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:01 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP What I would like to get at this stage is not actual configuration for one-time project. I need some "rule-of-thumb" in order to apply it for all of my projects to get budget calculation. For example, for projects with not more than 200 subscribers and 10 Mbps backhaul you advise to use configuration "Small". Then, for projects with up to 1000 subscribers and 100 Mbps backhaul, you advise to use configuration "Medium". For every type of configuration I would like to know its technical characteristics and price. Thank you in advance! -- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1388 / Virus Database: 1516/3747 - Release Date: 07/06/11 -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/<> WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP
Mikrotik OSPF can break older Quagga releases. (Imagestream can use Quagga) For example,. I recently installed some RB1100s, and my Zebra .94 machines instantly went into route floods and restarts, and filling log files in a day. I upgraded to Quagga .12 and all good now. (note: Quagga current release is up to .18 now. The week before I had an issue where three OSPF routers were on the same subnet. (mikrotik being the third) and Instantly made OSPF go haywire. Changed so two remote OSFPD servers were on their own IP block, and problem solved. Mikrotik often blaims Quagga for the bug. But then again, tings didn;t crash until the Mikrotik was injected. I guess my point is... OSPF is more complicated than some people think. Its to be expected that different OSPF servers may react differently to certain network conditions. But almost always, there is a way to fix it, when one figures out the design flaw in the configuration, which often is a user issue, more than a manufacturer issue. I like Quagga because there is a huge comunity behind it. Easier for me to support it. But so far my Mikrotik seems to be doing OSPF fine, now that all is configured properly. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Kevin Sullivan To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP We've had trouble with Imagestream to Mikrotik OSPF. It seems to break itself every six months or so. Anyone else had to trouble with that? Kevin - Original Message - From: Joe Fiero To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP Imagestream has been very good to us as well. Every bit the "Cisco experience", but at a fraction of the cost. Reliability has been excellent. They hum along year after year. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Justin Wilson Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:36 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP I have used Imagestream routers in what I would consider carrier situations. Have had Imagestreams in VRRP running multiple BGP full feeds and Gigs of traffic per second. Not saying it's a do all solution, but is a serious contender. Add on top the fact you don't need $1000's of dollars a year for smartnet I am happy. Not saying it's your solution, but definitely worth looking at. Justin -- Justin Wilson Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw http://www.mtin.net/blog - xISP News http://www.twitter.com/j2sw - Follow me on Twitter Wisp Consulting - Tower Climbing - Network Support From: Bryan Fields Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:05:10 -0400 To: WISPA General List Cc: Roman Subject: Re: [WISPA] Choosing core router for small - medium WISP On 7/6/2011 10:52, Roman wrote: I would like to ask for help of wireless community. We have to choose supplier of core router for our WISP projects. I know technical characteristics and price for core routers from Cisco - 7200 and 7600 series. Although these models have impressive possibilities, their price is very prohibitive for small/medium projects. Which models of core router do use in your projects? I would like to get your recommendations, its advantages and disadvantages. Would like to know some cheap and middle-price options. It comes down to the feature set you need and the performance required. Can you share your expected traffic numbers and what features you want to run? The cisco 7200 is a bit long in the tooth, the 7600 is the way to go forward. Each can be found on the secondary market for cheap. From a new device purchase decision, it's hard to beat the Juniper SRX series for smaller deployments. a $1500 router can handle 300 mbit/s of IP/mpls and firewall in hardware is hard to beat. The new MX series can handle 80gb/slot and its the next big competition to the 7600 from cisco. Junos is amazing to work with compared to IOS too. However if you do need multiple line rate 10gb/s interfaces, the ALU 7750/7710 should be considered too. I'd not consider the Imagestream product as it's not a serious carrier contender. As of two years back they just did not have a product, and bowed out of an RFP I was forced into running. It's a neat small office router, but that's all. Again this is all my opinion :) -- Bryan Fields APAC Imports LLC Phone: 800-721-6502 Fax: 727-493-1511 http://apacimports.com
Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz
>From NPRM... >whether we should allow 50 megahertz channels in the 13 GHz band for FS, BAS, >and > CARS in order to allow systems to use wider channels to obtain higher data > rates. (Originally debating whether 25Mhz or 28Mhz channels, and recognizing that 25Mhz channels made more sense spectrally, but no equipment available that did 25Mhz). The answer is YES, please allow 50Mhz channels !!! Most major pre-existing manufacturers make popular gear that supports 50Mhz channel size, and could be easilly modified to accommodate 6 - 13 Ghz. Due to market rate cost of roof colocation and fiber, and consumer trends demanding faster broadband, WISPs need Higher capacity backhaul links to reach longer distances. 50Mhz offers speeds up to 366mhz, desperately needed, and is more efficient than 25Mhz, because of better ratio of channel's bandwidth used for payload versus management protocol overhead, since protocol overhead bandwdith requirement is fixed near the same regardless of the size of the payload capacity. I'm predicting that much of the work will be on reply comments. If pre-existing licensee (broadcasters, cable cos) protest the use of band for specific reasons, for us to counter such claims as false, and how we can get around their concerns. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Rick Harnish To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz Released: 06/07/2011. WIRELESS BACKHAUL: FURTHER INQUIRY INTO FIXED SERVICE SHARING OF THE 6875-7125 MHZ AND 12700-13200 MHZ BANDS. (DA No. 11-1011). (Dkt No 10-153 ). WTB http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.txt http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.txt From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:11 AM To: WISPA General List; motor...@afmug.com Subject: [WISPA] FCC NPRM for Licensed Links in 7 and 13 Ghz Anyone has the link for the latest news on this? Gino A. Villarini g...@aeronetpr.com Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 787.273.4143 -- 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] FCC not listening to us
Thanks for sharing the arcticle and point of view. I personally would side with the conclusion of the author, which is one reason I supported congress's protest to overturn the FCC's netneutrality work. However, there are trade offs with anything. The first battle might have been to stop the FCC wrong doing, but if that is won, there becomes a second harder battle of "how do you stop the entity that takes over (congress) from doing worse harm?". Note, Cogress can do harm via legal methods, where they might not be bound by the same openess laws as the FCC officials. An example, I can use is the last FCC administration that favored TV Whitespace for Unlicensed, where the new and future FCC or even congress might possibly favor Mobile carriers use of TV Whitespace. We sometimes forget what sparks change. The predicessor lost public support to the extend that it was worth the risk to try change. Votes were made based on what they previously didn't like, instead of viewpoints they liked from future candidates. This is not as simple as democrat versus republican thing, because both parties have forces that work against us and for us. I've always been a supporter of less government. But we also sometimes forget, that there is another force called "big business" that can be a threat to the average business. Sometimes the only entity large enough and capable to help combat big business is government, unless small business is clever enough to play politics and turn one big business against another big business, to have them do the work for us, to encourage a lesser harm end result. My point here is... its a catch-22 no matter what we do. For example, supporting policy makers that combat socialistic policy, would likely at the same time support policy makers that increase support for big business. Winning one could means losing the other. In my testimony, I wrote, "stay out of our business, its not yours.". But realistically, that will never occur as long as there are lobbyist calling on the government to deal with issues of our industry, and we dont have the ability to stop our competitors from doing that. Its not as simple as saying, "dont regulate us". Because even if we are not regulated by the FCC, powers in charge still make laws that will effect our industry from another angle, by making laws and programs that prefer our competitors that might be regulated. In conclusion, my opinion is we need to stop complaining about our government leaders in place, and instead, start looking for the leaders to take their place that will be better apt to give us the support and ideology that what we need. Or we need to continue to educate and influence our prospective leaders to be able to better support us. So far, I haven't seen anyone that clearly would give us everything we need. Unless we identify and hand pick those potential leaders, more change will just lead to more of the same. I will concur that "less government and regulation" is better, all things considered and simplified. But the irony here is... in order to accomplish that, we are going to have to turn to our government politicians to gain their support and get them involved to implement that plan of "lesser government". One of the things I have always said is that our issues would go to congress sooner than later. And that is happening now, congress is getting involved. This could be a good or bad thing depending on the outcome of their involvement. There is no time better than now to be active in government lobbying for the Internet industry. The truth is... there are good people in congress, and involved on the commerce committee. But the problem is our opponents' lobbying forces at the congressional level are stronger than ever. Its a lot of work to lobby 600 house and senate law makers. I've always been one to want drive a strong clear stance. But in my later years, I'm starting to learn that sometimes being realistic, which might result in compromising on a stance, has a better chance to lead to some level of possitive change. From what I've seen, that has always been what politics has been about. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "MDK" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 9:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC not listening to us > Take what you read here with a grain of salt, the quality of articles is > variable. However, that at some level, the hearings were a sham, is not > to be disputed. > > When partisans, who are motivated to implement political ideology, over > stewardship of public assets, are appointed to office... this is what you > get. Everyone keeps accusing me of being political and I keep trying to > tell you
Re: [WISPA] FW: WISPA Bylaws
Not to make suggestions after the fact but In the past, it was realized that flexibilty was lost in setting appropriate dues because there were only a limited number of classes (assoc, principal, vendor). It would make sense to also add to the bylaws and ballot, the ability for the board to set additional "classes" of membership. The reason for this is... the majority class is currently "principle". Currently if the member prospect does not qualify for "principle" the alternative becomes the lower revenue "associate" class even if the prospect was a candidate appropriate to pay a higher rate. A class could be used to advertise specific companies as higher contributors, such as a Gold and Platnum principle member (a WISP that is larger or desired to donate more cash in excahnge for good will). As well additional classes could be used to allow a membership without certain privilages that other WISPs might have. For example which Lists they have access to. (An example of that might have been the WCA 3650 issue, where a telco might want to join to work on a specific project, but may not qualify as a typical WISP). Adding Classes, enables the ability to target alternate revenue streams, other than to raise principle member's dues, and without compromising principle member's voting power and association focus. Alternatively, it would work to give the ability to add "sub-classes", that allowed fine tuning of rights or dues per that specific sub-class. For example, manufacturer versus service provider versus investor. Or WISPs under 500sub, 500-5000, and Large National providers > 5000. Or Associate of government versus non-profit versus consultant, versus press, versus newbie exploring wireless. I'm not suggesting defing classes now, just suggesting board given the ability to add classes, if needed in the future. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Victoria To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 11:35 AM Subject: [WISPA] FW: WISPA Bylaws Dear Members, This election, you are going to be presented with proposed changes in the WISPA Bylaws. Rick has posted these changes: http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=4752 Please take a moment and be familiar with them. If you have any questions, please email to: wispabyl...@wispa.org Thanks and have a great Memorial Day! Best regards, Victoria Proffer President/CEO St. Louis Broadband, LLC 314-974-5600 2010 - 2011 Board of Directors Committee Chairs - Bylaws | National Disaster | State Coordinators |Missouri State Coordinator -- 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] 2.4GHz 802.11n hardware that will do 40MHz and 20MHzchannels simultaneously?
I had started using UBNT instead of Mikrotik for my MIMO installs because for me, the UBNT gear seemed to work more consistently with less agrevation in noisy environments. However... Mikrotik appears to do a better job following 802.11n specification. It handles 40Mhz to 20Mhz coexistence properly. If you set the MT AP to 40Mhz, and set the CPE to 20Mhz, it will connect at 20Mhz. Basically, the MT AP will try 40Mhz first, and when it doesn't function it drops to the primary 20Mhz channel for the CPE. It sets the first 20Mhz as the constant base channel. And then MT has a configuration to state whether the second 20Mhz portion will be above or below the primary base. This is useful because you can set the primary base 20Mhz channel to be the channel that is most reliable, to guarantee the base channel is as reliable as possible, and still have the ability to select above or below it for the next best. With this said... I can not comment on interoperabilty with non-Mikrotik gear, nor can I comment on how well the adaptation between 40 and 20 will occur regarding quality, latency or effect on TCP for the traffic passing.. When using Mikrotik I usually recommend restricting the number of Mode possibilities, so that only the modes that work well are available. Other wise the radios spend to much time trying the many variations of modes that might not work well. For example, when interference occurs, does it drop a chain (polarity) or downshift to 20Mhz? Also you'll notice in Mikrotik that you select both the rates it supports and advertises that it supports. This might help with interoperability. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Greg Ihnen" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 6:22 AM Subject: [WISPA] 2.4GHz 802.11n hardware that will do 40MHz and 20MHzchannels simultaneously? >I asked this on the UBNT forum but received no answer. > > The 802.11n specification states that when an AP is set to 40MHz channels > it should allow older gear that's only capable of 20MHz channels to > connect in that mode as well. > > With 2.4GHz UBNT gear I'm finding that if the AP is set to 40MHz then > that's all it will allow clients to connect at - clients that are not > capable of 40MHz channels just don't connect. Apple gear and some others > won't do 40MHz in the 2.4GHz band. > > Does anyone know if there's any cards that could be used the MT > routerboards that could do both 40MHz and 20MHz channels simultaneously? > > Thanks! > Greg > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 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] Staff Apparel
OK, Lets look at this from a different angle "Durability". I've never been a fan of brand name, until Ralph Lauren "Polo" brand Polo shirts. They might cost two three four times as much, but they last longer than any other brand polo style shirt I've ever bought, years compared to months. Even high end department store brands are lucky to make it longer than 1 or 2 towerclimbs before they look like they are on their last leg, with snags. And if the tower doesn't kill it, surely the Coffee Mug spill on the drive in will, or the mustard stain from lunch on the run will. So, how is the quality "durablity" of the shirts, from the online stores you members are recommending? Any hints on the type (specifications) shirt that will last in the field for the working man WISP? With that said... I had gotton some polo shirts made by Anvil which were 100% cotton for $8 each, and they seemed just as durable as any other brand I bought, (other than RL Polo). (google search for Anvil can find sellers of). I figured if I wasn't going to find top quality, I'd go quantity, and at $8 a peice, so what if I had to replace them after a few weeks in the field. (I had my neighbor embroider them who had a busienss doing that. ). Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forrest Christian To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Staff Apparel Cabelas evidentally does this also, although I haven't tried it out yet... http://corporateoutfitter.cabelas.com On 5/18/2011 7:03 PM, RickG wrote: www.queensboro.com On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote: Cintas works for us. Shirts are inepensive and logo is only $4 per shirt and a $50 setup fee. Shirt prices range from $9-$50. Regards, Chuck On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:03 PM, wrote: > That is what we do, as well > > > > From: Cameron Crum [mailto:cc...@wispmon.com] > To: WISPA General List [mailto:wireless@wispa.org] > Sent: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:09:31 -0400 > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Staff Apparel > > Or go buy all the shirts and take them to an embroidery place. I got a bunch > of the same brand/style in the sizes and colors I needed at Costco and had > one of my customers who had an amazing computer controlled embroidery > machine put our logo on them. They turned out great! > > Cameron > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 2:05 PM, David E. Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 13:54, Steve Barnes wrote: >>> >>> I have found this to be an issue. All the retail shops want to do a min >>> or 12 like shirts. Basically I have 4 staff that are everywhere from size >>> small to 4X with me doing different names and different colors and different >>> sizes I doubt that I have more than 2 shirts the same. >>> >> >> You'll probably have better luck finding a small local outfit to do this, >> precisely because the big companies usually have large minimum orders. >> If you do want to do it all online, try customink.com. Can't vouch for >> their embroidery, but I've ordered hundreds of screen-printed T-shirts >> through them with no problems. Their Web site they have a minimum embroidery >> order of just 6 shirts, and you can mix-and-match. >> David Smith >> MVN.net >> >> >> >> >> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> http://signup.wispa.org/ >> >> >> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Licensed vs Unlicensed / Carrier-class vs not
Speed/Capacity. But depends what freq License you are talking about. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Troy Settle To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 8:44 AM Subject: [WISPA] Licensed vs Unlicensed / Carrier-class vs not Other than making some guy in a suit feel good and being safer from interference, what advantages are there to running a so-called carrier class system using a licensed frequency? -- Troy Settle, Network Administrator The Wired Road Authority 1117 E. Stuart Dr. Galax, VA 24333 (276) 238-0049 (office) (276) 237-3890 (cell) tset...@thewiredroad.net -- 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] 11Ghz Channel Size
There is not a limit to the number of 11Ghz channel licenses that a WISP can buy for a path. Its just that 40Mhz is the max for the channel. If you want double the speed (equivellent of 80Mhz), you buy two radios and buy two 40Mhz channel licenses. Let your switches or routers balance it. This is a bit less efficient though than one big channel, because you have to replicate protocol overhead twice. You can see this comparing that speed increase going from 40 to 50Mhz channel is significantly greater than the speed increase jump going from 30mhz to 40Mhz. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:40 PM Subject: [WISPA] 11Ghz Channel Size > Right now on 11Ghz your max channel size is 40Mhz. Is the FCC looking > at allowing the bonding of two channels into an 80Mhz channel? I > think this can be done in 18Ghz. > > > > 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] [WISPAOLD] Licensed 11ghz Hops
Yes, 40Mhz is the maximum width allowed for a 11Ghz channel and license. However, you can buy two licenses and bond two channels, using two radios.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Carullo To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPAOLD] Licensed 11ghz Hops Below is part of a conversation from last November. Josh mentions the SAF Lumina using 50Mhz channels for 325Mb FDX. For FCC in the US 40Mhz channel is the largest that can be used right? Just want to verify my understanding and make sure there isn't a way to do this in the US Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 -- From: "Brad Belton" Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:10 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops You coordinate two paths. We have a Trango GigaLINK 6GHz link using two radio pairs and a combiner plate attaching to one antenna on each end. One radio set is V the other is H. Gives us twice the capacity (165MB x 2) plus failover in the event one ODU or IDU fails plus Frequency diversity for higher overall availability. Best, Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 2:07 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Licensed 11ghz Hops Not sure where dual polarities come in to play with licensed gear. I know that your PCN strictly states V or H. The SAF CFIP Lumina uses 50Mhz one way and 50Mhz the other way to get full duplex. Each channel with 256qam does 325mbps. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Matt wrote: How long has Exalt been doing licensed gear? Is it pretty good gear? Does SAF allow you to use a dual polarity dish in 11ghz and bond both polarities for additional bandwidth? Can both polarities be done on the same channel? 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] FCC477 fines?
FCC regulation made it "mandatory" to report. Its not optionional. They limited reporting detail to a level that they felt would not compromise other privacy or confidenciality or competition laws. With that said... I personally feel that the FCC is on legally weak grounds to force WISPs to provide such data, for a number of reasons. If I got a fine, I'd go to court to fight it, before I'd pay it. However, if the FCC took the time to make the cortesy call, the party in violation is on the radar, and it would sure be much easier for the party to just report the data, after they got that call. I dont think the FCC has ever fined anyone or audited the data reported. I dont think it would go over very well if they did. But I surely dont think its worth the risk to test them. They have the authority to impose the fine on ISPs and WISPs for not filing. (unless over turned faught in court) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 1:36 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC477 fines? I believe it has been that way all along, they just never enforced it. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:57 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FCC477 fines? One of our customers got a call today from the FCC. The FCC representative on the other end told him that he had missed the deadline for filing his 477 form and that this was a courtesy call. If he did not get his filing in soon, he would be subject to a fine. Well it was easy enough to rectify with our software for him, but I'm curious as to when this became a finable offense. Does anyone know? We called and questioned the FCC rep who threatened our customer and he told us it was the law, although he was unable to tell us when the "law" went into effect, or which piece of legislation made it law and a finable offense. Can you really be fined for this now? Any of you lurking lawyers out there know? I'd be curious to know. Regards, Cameron -- 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] TrangoLink45 Question
Is it the latest firmware? Is radio operating in 5.8 or 5.4 freqs? If 5.4, 5.3, max configurable power is 2db for ext, or 6db for panel. If reboot the AP and SU, does the error message go away (atleast for a while)? Could be SNMP daemon crashing or running out of resources. Are you doing any SNMP communication to the radios, to make periodic configs, such as set power? If so, using latest Trango MIBs? If not, are your radios on public or private IPs, and if you block SNMP to radio in firewall, does the error stop occuring? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Scott Reed" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 6:45 PM Subject: [WISPA] TrangoLink45 Question > Does anyone here know what the follow errors really mean, what the > impact may be on the link and how to fix them: > 54> 1:01:59:09.752 1467 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 55> 1:02:03:32.741 1471 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 56> 1:02:04:48.134 1474 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 57> 1:02:04:56.112 1476 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 58> 1:02:32:32.393 1479 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 59> 1:02:32:45.584 1481 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 60> 1:02:38:05.269 1488 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 61> 1:02:38:19.337 1490 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 62> 1:02:44:09.348 1497 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 63> 1:02:44:09.348 1498 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 64> 1:02:45:44.269 1502 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 65> 1:03:07:16.213 1513 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 66> 1:03:07:31.213 1514 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 67> 1:03:07:31.213 1515 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 68> 1:03:09:01.337 1519 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 69> 1:03:31:09.168 1530 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 70> 1:03:31:20.224 1532 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 71> 1:03:47:30.033 1539 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 72> 1:03:47:45.033 1540 [ERR] dsaccess: socket timeout > 73> 1:03:47:45.033 1541 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > 74> 1:03:49:15.292 1545 [ERR] batchdV2.c 936: Fail to snmpset adjusted > power 16 > > There are matching errors on the MU as well. > > -- > Scott Reed > Owner > NewWays Networking, LLC > Wireless Networking > Network Design, Installation and Administration > Mikrotik Advanced Certified > www.nwwnet.net > (765) 855-1060 > > > > > > 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] Cogent vs. Hurricane
I'd vote: Hurricane... Because... 1) Hurricane is better/easier to work with for the WISP provider, from the accounting/management side. (Customers probably wont be able to tell the difference) 2) Hurricaine is better prepared for the future with IPv6. 3) Cogent is more likely to compete against you to obtain your clients. The reasoning here is that Hurricaine is primarilly just in the data center. Cogent goes out to the city buildings. And you end up providing your upstream confidential info about your customers, such as usage per IP, and BGP or IP info, etc. What I will say about Cogent is... their tech support is awesome at any hour of the night. Its the only reason we still use them. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Matt" To: "WUG" ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:05 PM Subject: [WISPA] Cogent vs. Hurricane > Looking at a GigE to a datacenter with both Cogent and Hurricane. > Anybody using them? Which is better for gamers etc? > > > > 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] looking for ideas...
If voice copper already runs between the sites, you can use EFM. (Wikipedia EFM) 9000ft upto 6mb over voice copper. And an alternate version (VDSL based) can do minimum 10mb, but not as far. But when ever cable needs to be run long distances, say over 650ft (two segments with swtich in between), it generally warrants fiber because fiber is also cheap, and then you have expansion. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Larry A Weidig To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 5:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] looking for ideas... My initial response is fiber, due to distances. However, you might be able to get away with something less costly depending on requirements. What speed? 10, 100, 1000, 10G. There are lots of Ethernet extenders that can give you speeds to 100 Mbps over coax, copper,. just Google it and you will find plenty. We have used these when fiber is not an option. However, make sure you take grounding between buildings into account as well with stuff like coax/copper. If you can afford it fiber is your best option. * Larry A. Weidig (lwei...@excel.net) * Excel.Net,Inc. - http://www.excel.net/ * (920) 452-0455 - Sheboygan/Plymouth area * (888) 489-9995 - Other areas, toll-free From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 4:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] looking for ideas... I have a special job to do. I need to connect 4 sites together in a line and provide Ethernet connectivity between them. I may NOT use wireless to do this. I can run overhead cable of most any type I need to. Coax, cat3 or cat5, or even fiber if the price is right... Site 1 to site 2 is 700 ft. Site 2 to site 3 is 900 ft. Site 3 to site 4 is 2400 ft. Looking for options... -- 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] Possible interference with Alvarion 2.4 / 5.8 GHz
The first thing I'd clarify is who has interference protection priority, in their colocation agreement? You or them? This will define who has to assume the burden of cost or unconvenience to resolve and prevent interference. Are your AP Antennas integrated or embedded? If embedded, the other party does not under stand the FCC certified system rules, that prevent you from inserting filters, which you couldn't do either without changing your APs to ext models. I would argue that front in overload is a likely possibilty. I'd argue that you should push to have the other parties new equipment to be installed at a location a safe distance vertically away from your antennas, to prevent the overload, and to pre-calculate what that safe distance needs to be. (also de-sensitization could occur) Or, if this is going to be a trial and error thing, that its made clear the proceedure and timeline for resolution (which should be immediate) if interference is heard. I'd suggest being available on day going live, so you can have them shut down, if link quality get hurt for your customers. If you already have ext model ap in the air, it may be easier to just buy and install the filters as a precaution, if the insertion loss is acceptable to incur. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Eduardo To: WISPA General List Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 2:56 PM Subject: [WISPA] Possible interference with Alvarion 2.4 / 5.8 GHz Hi, I have 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz AP´s in a tower where a company is planning to install above our antennas a channel 24 LPTV antenna receiving on 647 MHZ (channel 43) and transmitting on 533 MHz (channel 24). My question is if the harmonics could cause any interference to us or could be an issue? These are the specifications we received from the company: The transmit power will be 580 watts on TV channel 24 which is 530-536 MHzThe transmitter is heavily filtered with a "stringent mask" to eliminate out of band energy. http://louise.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2010/74/794/If there are any problems it's likely due to front end overload of your equipment. That can be easily resolved with the addition of filters between your antenna(s) and receiver(s).If your 2.4 GHz equipment suffers any interference I'd propose an L-com BPF2400A: http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=22046If your 5.8 GHz equipment is bothered the BPF5800A should eliminate any issues: http://www.l-com.com/item.aspx?id=22184Any comment will be welcome. Thanks. EduardoWebjogger Internet Serviceswww.webjogger.net -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] Dennis's Router OS Book.
I just bought a copy of Dennis Burgess's "Learn Router OS" Book. I have to say, I felt it was very well written and laid out intuitively. For those that haven't seen it, and have new techs needing to be introduced to Mikrotik, I highly recommend it. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 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] Extra Canopy 900 SMs
Yeah, we did the same at some of our towers also. When it costs $300 per sector antenna per month, we dont install two antennas in the same direction unless the second one can pay for itself. For example, in one case there were 35 homes to serve, 5 with LOS and 30 without. 900Mhz was a requirement for 30. It was hard to justify to pay an extra $300 per month just to serve 5 more homes with 5.x at a profit loss. Before video, the 35 homes on a 900 sector gave bettter speeds than most DSL. We now are overlaying 5.x sectors, just because I need all the 900 mhz capacity for the NLOS customers, even if it means breaking even on the 5.x customers, better than loosing them. Plus, as new homes are built, and trees get cut, a few more homes pop up that have LOS. At current Ubiquiti prices, it becomes much more cost effective to install a sector for a few LOS customers, but that option was not nearly as cost effective 5 years ago. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: support To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 5:14 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs you where installing 900Mhz SM's for all that had L.O.S to your tower? WOW On 4/22/2011 2:10 PM, Scott Piehn wrote: Ubiquiti M5s. Where we can do the switch due to trees, have been very happy. Has defiantly cut down on service calls. We still have all the 900 APs in the air, just fewer customers on them. Scott Piehn JCWIFI.com Division Manager Computer Dynamics 451 W. South St Freeport, IL 61032 spi...@computerdyn.com V 815.233.2641 F 815.233.6225 - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs For curiosity, what did you upgrade to, to get higher speeds than the Canopy? And how did it work out for you? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Piehn To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:56 AM Subject: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs Just wondering if there is a market and how much for Canopy 900 SMs. We have 100 or so extra due to upgrades to get higher speed - Scott Piehn 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/ -- Tim Steele supp...@nitline.com NITLine Support (574) 772-7550 ext 103 www.NITLine.net -- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs
For curiosity, what did you upgrade to, to get higher speeds than the Canopy? And how did it work out for you? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Scott Piehn To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:56 AM Subject: [WISPA] Extra Canopy 900 SMs Just wondering if there is a market and how much for Canopy 900 SMs. We have 100 or so extra due to upgrades to get higher speed - Scott Piehn -- 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] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?
Butch, Nice reply, I agree with everything you said. I agree that the time to begin managing network traffic, is always. The reason I believe this is... 1) any thing one does to help, helps. 2) If you dont have traffic management in place, when you need it, it will be to late. But its also important to recognize that flaws might exist in a network design that cant easilly be avoided, that can undermine an administrators attempt to manage their traffic. What I mean by that is that, some variable beyond one's control might have a higher effect than factors that are in one's control. So because of this, traffic management techniques cant always be 100% relied on, although they help a great deal. One of the best examples is the impact of half duplex radios, or adaptive speed (modulation) radios, on bandwdith management systems that treat outbound and inbound traffic seperately. In many cases, bandwidth management requires you to know the capacity of a link in advance. So, lets say you have a 10mbps half duplex link. If you want to be able to have 10mbps up traffic, you must tell your bandwidth management to allow that 10mbps up. But then what happens if you have 5mbps of download traffic? The upload bandwidth management still thinks it has 10mbps max, but in reality it only has 5mbps available, while 5mbps is downloading. Its impossibly to know in advance the up and down ratio. Or lets look at it a different way... RED gracefully drops packets to slow down throughput as needed. When a half duplex link gets saturated, which direction (up or down traffic) should packets be dropped from? Many of the traffic management methods are based on the assumption that links are full duplex, and get applied to outbound interfaces, therefore a different interface or queue per direction. In some cases, a different router manages the traffic in the other direction, and not able to communicate with the other router.. (example, router on each side of a link, each managing a queue for outbound). Traffic management is much easier to impliment on a full duplex fixed capacity fiber connection, than it is on a variable half duplex wireless connection. Queuing traffic management is not the same as bandwidth management, but none the less, I believe to have demonstrated my point. When our network was less congested, traffic management tools made a huge different for us to maximize the amount of data we could pass smoothly accross our network efficiently. What we found was that half duplex was efficient for RF, and not a disadvantage for "wireless". This worked well for us, for 10 years. But as our network became more congested, half duplex did show to be a challenge for traffic management. It came to a point where Full Duplex licensed links was the only answer, and helped the most. And then our traffic management became more reliable as a result. My point is, its not only the method of traffic management that matters, but also the characteristics of the network. Queuing and QOS will always help make the best of one's network, but it wont fully make up for deficiencies in a physical network. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Butch Evans" To: Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this? > On 04/08/2011 12:07 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: >> There is definately a need for different queue types at different points >> on >> the network. Multiple Queue types have been developed because there are >> different problems to solve for different situations. > This is true. > >> What I question is when it is necessary to solve a problem. I hardly >> justify >> a complete network queueing standard overhaul, just to satisfy the abilty >> to >> perform a single stream TCP test to Speak easy at full speed, when most >> business circuits serve many TCP streams at a time to fill capacity. > This is a very good point. The current trending of internet traffic is > geared toward more and more streams. Of the available queue types, only > SFQ (or one of it's derivative types) and RED make much sense. FIFO > queues, without properly managing the traffic entering those queues, > will cause customers to sit up and take notice in a negative way. The > problem with SFQ is that the algorithm used to implement this is fairly > slow. It doesn't work well under heavy load. More specifically, it > falls apart when the volume of traffic is excessive. Mikrotik adds > another queue type called PCQ, which is sort of like FIFO queues grouped > by some classifier such as source addresses and/or ports OR destination > addresses and/or ports OR some wicked combination of all of the above. > PCQ is an alternative, as it allows you
Re: [WISPA] RED queues out, PCQ queues in - anyone else doing this?
There is definately a need for different queue types at different points on the network. Multiple Queue types have been developed because there are different problems to solve for different situations. What I question is when it is necessary to solve a problem. I hardly justify a complete network queueing standard overhaul, just to satisfy the abilty to perform a single stream TCP test to Speak easy at full speed, when most business circuits serve many TCP streams at a time to fill capacity. So it boils down to weighing the scale of how bad the problem is and how badly the customers notices it. There can be a very fine line on which Queueing methods are required for specific cases, and sometimes picking one makes it easier to consistently implement, even if there are some trade offs. On our core routers we've found RED to work well. But we also have other areas where we queue where we use other things, such building routers or customer routers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 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] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
80ms? Ouch. That must play havoc for TCP. Clearly not business grade. Having a local wireless service with latency worse than a wired USA East to West coast round trip. With that kind of latency, I dont see how a user would get all that good a performance transfer rate in real world application over the Internet, considering average window sizes.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > LTE latency is about 60-100 ms > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Gino Villarini > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:13 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > > Yes, wimax latencies on d and e systems are documented, im talking about > LTE latency > > Gino A. Villarini > g...@aeronetpr.com > Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. > 787.273.4143 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jeremie Chism > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:07 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > > Wimax. Not mobile. Mobile has higher latency times. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:59 PM, "Gino Villarini" wrote: > >> Wimax or LTE? >> >> Gino A. Villarini >> g...@aeronetpr.com >> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >> 787.273.4143 >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On >> Behalf Of Jeremie Chism >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 8:55 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update >> >> Depending on your cp ratio that will determine latency (atleast on >> mine). Lower cp ratio gives lower latency numbers. We typically see >> 20ms. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:53 PM, Blake Covarrubias >> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 5, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Gino Villarini wrote: >>> >>>> That's air rate, actual throughput its about 60%... LTE Latency? > IIRC >> it >>>> was in the 100 ms? >>> >>> >>> I can't comment on LTE, but we're doing a trial of mobile WiMAX and >> seeing about 50-60ms back to the ASN gateway. >>> >>> -- >>> Blake Covarrubias >>> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> 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] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
I dont care what the CPE costs, I care about what the AP costs. The big dollar APs can be a big deterent to grow organically. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Jeremie Chism" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update >I know Axxcelera is planning LTE equipment in the 3.65 ghz band this year. >It is cost effective to deploy to businesses in an Internet/VoIP setup but >will not make it to the residential market at anything that will make money >because the cpe's run in the 300.00 range. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 5, 2011, at 3:58 PM, "Tom DeReggi" > wrote: > >> yes +1, but WISPs can only upgrade if there is a product to upgrade to. >> >> No one wants to upgrade without accomplishing enough compensation or gain >> to >> match the effort and cost. >> >> The industry has done a very good job at getting the price down on >> typical >> style WISP gear. >> But I'm not confident that the industry has done all it could to innovate >> and release state of the art radios at the same price as the old ones? >> >> Lets look at the PC industry and Intel CPUs... Each year the speed >> capability has exponentially increased. After one year a computer is >> considered outdated to the dark ages. >> >> In the Radio industry, I can use a radio I bought 10 years ago, and it >> performs almost as good as the neweest model, or no less than a 50% >> degregation. >> >> Comparing the radio industry to the PC industry, the radio industry's >> performance/innovation growth rate is light years behind the PC industry. >> >> The radio industry is still caught up on being proud of what they can >> accomplish in a lab. But they are not working hard enough to deliver for >> real world competitive and technical challenges. >> >> A perfect example is MIMO. The fact is... Noise will always exist and >> always >> be unpredictable. MIMO has been a reality for two years now. Everyone is >> happy with basic mode 1-16 MIMO. But in the real world its common for >> one >> polarity to have more noise than the 90deg different polarity. Why run >> both >> chains at the lower modulation of the noisiest channel, compromising the >> overall speed? Just that problem alone, if solved, would yield a 30% >> increase in throughput out n the real world, to bring real world >> deployments >> closer to lab capabilty. MIMO modes above 16, were in the spec for years. >> Why aren't they being developed? >> >> Are we all going to have to buy LTE chipsets radios and modify them for >> unlciensed to be competitive? >> >> >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" >> To: ; "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:35 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update >> >> >>> +1 >>> >>> very well said.. to the point !... >>> Innovate / Upgrade to keep up with the demand or become obsolete and >>> irrelevant. ! >>> --- >>> >>> "The WISP's themselves will need to keep business plans >>> that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to >>> remain >>> continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade >>> and >>> replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will >>> also >>> need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up and to >>> show >>> that there is not stagnation with the company and its offerings." >>> --- >>> >>> Faisal Imtiaz >>> Snappy Internet& Telecom >>> 7266 SW 48 Street >>> Miami, Fl 33155 >>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 >>> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net >>> >>> >>> On 4/5/2011 9:04 AM, Brian Webster wrote: >>>> I have always said the cellular carriers have the over the air >>>> interface >>>> to >>>> deliver good speeds for the most part. It's their backhaul network that >>>> needs work and they are slowly and steadily upgradin
Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
yes +1, but WISPs can only upgrade if there is a product to upgrade to. No one wants to upgrade without accomplishing enough compensation or gain to match the effort and cost. The industry has done a very good job at getting the price down on typical style WISP gear. But I'm not confident that the industry has done all it could to innovate and release state of the art radios at the same price as the old ones? Lets look at the PC industry and Intel CPUs... Each year the speed capability has exponentially increased. After one year a computer is considered outdated to the dark ages. In the Radio industry, I can use a radio I bought 10 years ago, and it performs almost as good as the neweest model, or no less than a 50% degregation. Comparing the radio industry to the PC industry, the radio industry's performance/innovation growth rate is light years behind the PC industry. The radio industry is still caught up on being proud of what they can accomplish in a lab. But they are not working hard enough to deliver for real world competitive and technical challenges. A perfect example is MIMO. The fact is... Noise will always exist and always be unpredictable. MIMO has been a reality for two years now. Everyone is happy with basic mode 1-16 MIMO. But in the real world its common for one polarity to have more noise than the 90deg different polarity. Why run both chains at the lower modulation of the noisiest channel, compromising the overall speed? Just that problem alone, if solved, would yield a 30% increase in throughput out n the real world, to bring real world deployments closer to lab capabilty. MIMO modes above 16, were in the spec for years. Why aren't they being developed? Are we all going to have to buy LTE chipsets radios and modify them for unlciensed to be competitive? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" To: ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > +1 > > very well said.. to the point !... > Innovate / Upgrade to keep up with the demand or become obsolete and > irrelevant. ! > --- > > "The WISP's themselves will need to keep business plans > that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to > remain > continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade and > replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will also > need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up and to show > that there is not stagnation with the company and its offerings." > --- > > Faisal Imtiaz > Snappy Internet& Telecom > 7266 SW 48 Street > Miami, Fl 33155 > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 > Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net > > > On 4/5/2011 9:04 AM, Brian Webster wrote: >> I have always said the cellular carriers have the over the air interface >> to >> deliver good speeds for the most part. It's their backhaul network that >> needs work and they are slowly and steadily upgrading that. While most >> are >> bashing them, they eventually will have upgraded the sites to remain >> competitive. They are far from perfect but once they finally have true >> Ethernet transport to every site, their performance will improve a lot >> over >> all digital modes they offer. They are and will continue to be a player >> in >> the broadband world. Best for WISP's to keep an eye on what they are >> doing >> and keep the pace with the overall broadband market changes. Fortunately >> it >> seems that the fixed wireless technology has kept the pace and/or >> exceeded >> other technologies. The WISP's themselves will need to keep business >> plans >> that take advantage of emerging technologies and allow themselves to >> remain >> continually competitive. This means factoring in an aggressive upgrade >> and >> replacement path which will allow for market adaptability. This will also >> need to include marketing methodologies to keep their image up and to >> show >> that there is not stagnation with the company and its offerings. >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Webster >> www.wirelessmapping.com >> www.Broadband-Mapping.com >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Charles Wu >> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:37 AM >> To: li...@stlbroadband.com; WISPA General List >
Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update
Exactly why we need 1) Less spectrum to go to auctions, and more spectrum to go to unlicenced. 2) High power allowed in spectrum bands. 3) Manufacturters to raise their standard, to take advantage of latest radio and antenna technologies. Let me give you an example of what I mean.. Moto old product, 20Mhz, 14mb real (20mb) Moto new product (ofdm), 10Mhz 20mbps (35mb) in a lab, with noise maybe 10-15mbps (qam16). Why didn't they make a 20Mhz OFDM product, so that we could offer faster speeds, with their new product? Why didn;t they make a MIMO OFDM product, so we could use faster speeds, with their new products? Why didn;t they make a multiple diversity smart antenna model? Why haven't they made smart MIMO gear with modes above 16, such as to allow chain0 and chain1 to operate at different modulations? I'm not meaning to pick on Moto, they are a good company, I'm just using them as an easy example everyone could identify with. I know the answer why. Because they want to sell more radios, and not compete with their other product lines, not make us more efficent and competitive, so we need to buy fewer radios. My point is... the technology is out there. Whether manufacturers embrace it quick enough is another story. The demand is clearly there. If anything LTE is clearly creating harder competition for the private WISP industry. I dont think we'll ever get the signal into everyone's living room without antennas... Only licensed can operate at such a low sensitivity, because of low noise. (except for Whitespace users). But we surely could do better, if the technology was stepped up a couple notches. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" To: ; "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > It's generally known that the 20 Mb "burst" given by cable companies is > throttled to sustained download speeds in the 1-3 Mb range > > That said, the point I'm trying to make is that the technology has come so > far for mobile cellular data that we are now "unconsciously" comparing it > side-by-side to fixed terrestrial broadband technologies (think of it this > way, how many WISPs can deliver "up-to" speeds of 8-10 Mb to a low power > handset in the middle of a concrete building 3+ miles away from a tower) > > -Charles > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of St. Louis Broadband > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:33 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > > I just checked my Charter via Ookla and it said I was getting 20 Mbps down > and 1 Mbps up, horse pucky. > I only get that in speedtests and never when I have to upload or download > a > big file via FTP or whatever. > It generally gets throttled to dial up speeds or worse. > > ~V~ > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Charles Wu > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:21 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW - update > > Sitting in my living room at 8 pm3 bars, laptop connected to wireless > router on phone > > http://www.speedtest.net/result/1236758959.png > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 6:39 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW > > Yeah, its nice when a product is brand new, and you get the whole sector > all > > to yourself. > > I guess, its amazing that you are getting the speed to a handset, without > the big antenna outside. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Charles Wu" > To: ; "WISPA GeneralList" > > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 8:31 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW > > >> It is my understanding that Verizon is deploying an FDD version of LTE >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco >> Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:09 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW >> >> most of the test are "half duplex" tests. In few words, they do one >> direction, then the other direction (e.g. first the customer download, >> then the customer upload). >&
Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW
Yeah, its nice when a product is brand new, and you get the whole sector all to yourself. I guess, its amazing that you are getting the speed to a handset, without the big antenna outside. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" To: ; "WISPA GeneralList" Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW > It is my understanding that Verizon is deploying an FDD version of LTE > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Paolo Di Francesco > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 11:09 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Verizon 4G LTE - WOW > > most of the test are "half duplex" tests. In few words, they do one > direction, then the other direction (e.g. first the customer download, > then the customer upload). > > Suppose you have a 10Mb half duplex: the test will tell you that you > have 10Mb in one direction and 10Mb in the other direction. Then you use > the connection in 10Mb full duplex and you will discover the story is > totally different ;) > > Also, yes it's interesting to see what is happening on the network > interface when the test is running... > >> Do a real test and report back, like FTP. Ookla & Speedtest.net test are >> bogus 99.9% percent of the time because it's based on screwy test >> algorithms. >> >> On 04/01/2011 11:05 PM, Charles Wu wrote: >>> >>> Just got my HTC Thunderbolt, and Ookla tested 20 Mb down, 24 Mb up at >>> Speedtest.Net to my handset >>> >>> >>> >>> -Charles >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ > > > -- > > > Ing. Paolo Di Francesco > > Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale > > Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo > > C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 > Fax : +39-091-8772072 > assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 > web: http://www.level7.it > > > > > > > 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] OpenSource Email Server platform
I'm not advocating to prefer either inhouse or outsource, its a personal decission. But, it is important to understand that the cost to deliver Email services is not the primary variable to consider to make the decision to inhouse or outsource. The primary variable is who a WISP wants to let have access to their Clients. Email is the number one way to easilly address one's client base. Its worth far more than .35 per user, to keep my customer's eyeballs and ears. Just because I host inhouse Email does not mean I can keep my customer's eyeballs, GMail is tough competitions. But for me, its worth trying, considering I have the capabilty to have their ears with a live support person, and Google only has the option for Eyeballs since it is mostly web support. Not to mention, I already have a sunk pre-existing investment in Email server software and hardware. But I'm pretty certain it costs me more to host my own Email than it would to outsource. I dont do it to save money, that is for sure. The question to ask yourself is Do you want to be your customer's support person? There can be many benefits to being that, if a WISP takes advantage of that opportunity. I observe the bigger problem is that WISPs dont take advantage of the opportiunity for what ever reason. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Cameron Crum To: WISPA General List Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OpenSource Email Server platform I can't see why not. On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Christopher Hair wrote: Do you have the ability to do multiple domains with the Google platform? We also offer hosting services that need email. -Chris From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Crum Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 4:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] OpenSource Email Server platform I would second qmailtoaster if you have to have your own server. Personally, I would never run my own server again. At $0.35/mailbox with google or other hosted platforms, the time and effort it takes to keep things updated and blocking spam effectively are much more costly. Regards, Cameron On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Frank Crawford wrote: http://www.mailenable.com/standard_edition.asp There is a free (as in beer) edition and versions with the requirements that you requested. Frank On 3/28/2011 12:53 PM, Patrick D. Nix, Jr wrote: > Since we began in '98 we've been using the same windows based email server MailMax. Because of some support/productivity issues we are investigating integrating a new box. The requirements are: webmail, web management of individuals mail accounts (with password reset), pop3/smtp/imap, can run on Windows or Linux. We would also like a calendar and address book module in webmail as well. > > Anyone have suggestions? > > Thanks, > Patrick Nix, Jr., > Computer Network Solutions > CSWEB.NET Internet Services > IT Manager > http://www.cnetworksolutions.com > http://www.csweb.net > (918) 235-0414 > > > Attention: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. > > > > 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
[WISPA] Correction- Contact for House Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications- Kill NetNeutrality
HJ Res 37 actually will occur in front of House Subcommittee on Communications and Telecommunications. Here is a corrected Contact List. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=ctc&lang=&commcode=hcommerce_tech Committee Membership Majority Members (Republicans) Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Greg Walden (R-OR) [Chair] 202-225-6730 202-225-5774 Lee Terry (R-NE) 202-225-4155 202-226-5452 Cliff Stearns (R-FL) 202-225-5744 202-225-3973 John Shimkus (R-IL) 202-225-5271 202-225-5880 Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) 202-225-5330 202-225-2961 Mike Rogers (R-MI) 202-225-4872 202-225-5820 Brian P. Bilbray (R-CA) 202-225-0508 202-225-2558 Charles F. (Charlie) Bass (R-NH) 202-225-5206 202-225-2946 Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) 202-225-2811 202-225-3004 Phil Gingrey (R-GA) 202-225-2931 202-225-2944 Steve Scalise (R-LA) 202-225-3015 202-226-0386 Bob Latta (R-OH) 202-225-6405 202-225-1985 Brett Guthrie (R-KY) 202-225-3501 202-226-2019 Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) 202-225-3635 202-225-3521 Joe Barton (R-TX) 202-225-2002 202-225-3052 Minority Members (Democrats) Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) [Ranking Member] 202-225-8104 202-225-8890 Ed Markey (D-MA) 202-225-2836 202-226-0092 Mike Doyle (D-PA) 202-225-2135 202-225-3084 Doris Matsui (D-CA) 202-225-7163 202-225-0566 John Barrow (D-GA) 202-225-2823 202-225-3377 Edolphus (Ed) Towns (D-NY) 202-225-5936 202-225-1018 Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) 202-225-4671 202-225-9665 Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) 202-225-4372 202-226-0333 Diana DeGette (D-CO) 202-225-4431 202-225-5657 John D. Dingell (D-MI) 202-225-4071 202-226-0371 This Congressional data compilation Copyright © 2011 Congress Merge. All Rights Reserved. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc 301-515-7774 IntAirNet - Fixed Wireless Broadband 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] WISP Testifying before Congress Wednes - Kill NetNeutrality - What you can do!
Reforwarding. Sorry for the repeat, I forgot to change the subject field appropriately, last Email send. The House and Energy Committee will have a hearing this Wednesday, regarding "H.J. Res 37, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communication Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices". I, Tom DeReggi, representing RapidDSL & Wireless, have accepted the honor of testifying before Congress at this hearing. I'd like to note that this will be the second time a WISP will testfiy on this topic within a 2 week period, strengthening the relevence of our WISP Industry. In summary, if successful, and H.J. Res 37 is passed, it will reverse and nullify FCC's recent NetNEutrality rules. This is our chance to kill the poor NetNeutrality rules instantly in its tracks. Quick background. a.. On Monday, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton (MI-6) and Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee Greg Walden (OR-2) announced that on Wednesday they would markup H.J. Res. 37 . For those of you unfamiliar with the term markup, It means they would have limited debate followed by a vote on the resolution and any amendments" . b.. On Tuesday, Representatives Waxman (CA-30) and Eshoo (CA-14) sent a letter to the Chairs asking for them to hold a hearing on H.R. Res 37 before markup (as is standard practice). c.. On Wednesday (march 2nd), the Communications and Technology Subcommittee announced that they would delay the markup, and hold a hearing on it at some point in the future. The future is this upcoming Wednesday the 9th!! Talkin about quick action!! Now it is our chance to send FCC Chairman Genacowski (and commissioners) a clear message. That we will NOT accept rule making that IGNORES the interests of small business WISPs, and that we will go over their heads, if they ignore us. So why, am I so much against NetNeutrality? MANY REASONS. But the most obvious was that the FCC gave special consideration to mobile wirless carriers, but lumped Fixed Wireless Providers in with Fiber and wireline providers with out ANY consessions for our unique disadvantages industry. Giving "reasonable network mangement" and "usage billing" was NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH to address WISP's concerns. What the FCC really gave us was uncertainty, more regulations, more technical distractions, and more liabilty, that surely would lead to higher legal costs and customer support frustrations. NetNEutrality empowered and entitled Content providers and Consumers to control our networks, but left Access Providers to Foot the Bill. We were no longer free to etablish our own business model, but instead forced to be an Advance Broadband Company (Streaming Video), if we wanted to offer broadband without legal consequences. We need to take our authority back as private business and network owners. We actually have a really good chance to win Wednesday. Why, because the service provider industry (ILECS, CLECs, CableCos, WISPs, MobileWireless) is almost unaminously united in the fight against the FCC overstepping their bounds, and the committee is now majoirty Republican, and isn't obligated to follow the president's party. Verizon has already opened legal suit against the FCC as well, and threatening to stop investment. We need to convey several core messages, likely the top 3 most importance. That NetNeutrality rules (as-is) will.. 1. reduce or slow Investment in broadband build out. 2. slow bringing broadband to all Americans and underserved areas 3. cause loss of jobs or reduce jobs. (counter democrat's claim that NetNEutrality will create jobs) 4. harm small business access providers, and stiffle innovation 5. harm our subscibers, or degrade service to our subscribers. 6. creates challenges in network management or operations, which rules are not reasable to comply with. (over burdening). 7. are a distraction that take us away from our more important goal, to deploy broadband I'm still writing my presentation/testimony, so dont have it to share with membership yet. Right now the Republicans are on a rampage to help us. Lets show them our support and that we are watching. (Please note I am NOT endorsing a specific party and am not meaning to favor republicans or democrats. I am refering to them only in the context of my observations of where I've read that the majority in the party tend to stand currently on this specific topic/process) I suggeset a plan of action for members. To flood the House Committee members with support letters to PASS HJ RES 37. I've attached a list of the committee members to contact. A higher priority may be to convince democrat members. I suggest sending these support letters Tuesday Morning. Simply state, that you are a WISP, and that you SUPPORT "HJ Res 37", and
Re: [WISPA] 110 input for ARC enclosure
The House and Energy Committee will have a hearing this Wednesday, regarding "H.J. Res 37, Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communication Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices". I, Tom DeReggi, representing RapidDSL & Wireless, have accepted the honor of testifying before Congress at this hearing. I'd like to note that this will be the second time a WISP will testfiy on this topic within a 2 week period, strengthening the relevence of our WISP Industry. In summary, if successful, and H.J. Res 37 is passed, it will reverse and nullify FCC's recent NetNEutrality rules. This is our chance to kill the poor NetNeutrality rules instantly in its tracks. Quick background. a.. On Monday, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton (MI-6) and Chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee Greg Walden (OR-2) announced that on Wednesday they would markup H.J. Res. 37 . For those of you unfamiliar with the term markup, It means they would have limited debate followed by a vote on the resolution and any amendments" . b.. On Tuesday, Representatives Waxman (CA-30) and Eshoo (CA-14) sent a letter to the Chairs asking for them to hold a hearing on H.R. Res 37 before markup (as is standard practice). c.. On Wednesday (march 2nd), the Communications and Technology Subcommittee announced that they would delay the markup, and hold a hearing on it at some point in the future. The future is this upcoming Wednesday the 9th!! Talkin about quick action!! Now it is our chance to send FCC Chairman Genacowski (and commissioners) a clear message. That we will NOT accept rule making that IGNORES the interests of small business WISPs, and that we will go over their heads, if they ignore us. So why, am I so much against NetNeutrality? MANY REASONS. But the most obvious was that the FCC gave special consideration to mobile wirless carriers, but lumped Fixed Wireless Providers in with Fiber and wireline providers with out ANY consessions for our unique disadvantages industry. Giving "reasonable network mangement" and "usage billing" was NO WHERE NEAR ENOUGH to address WISP's concerns. What the FCC really gave us was uncertainty, more regulations, more technical distractions, and more liabilty, that surely would lead to higher legal costs and customer support frustrations. NetNEutrality empowered and entitled Content providers and Consumers to control our networks, but left Access Providers to Foot the Bill. We were no longer free to etablish our own business model, but instead forced to be an Advance Broadband Company (Streaming Video), if we wanted to offer broadband without legal consequences. We need to take our authority back as private business and network owners. We actually have a really good chance to win Wednesday. Why, because the service provider industry (ILECS, CLECs, CableCos, WISPs, MobileWireless) is almost unaminously united in the fight against the FCC overstepping their bounds, and the committee is now majoirty Republican, and isn't obligated to follow the president's party. Verizon has already opened legal suit against the FCC as well, and threatening to stop investment. We need to convey several core messages, likely the top 3 most importance. That NetNeutrality rules (as-is) will.. 1. reduce or slow Investment in broadband build out. 2. slow bringing broadband to all Americans and underserved areas 3. cause loss of jobs or reduce jobs. (counter democrat's claim that NetNEutrality will create jobs) 4. harm small business access providers, and stiffle innovation 5. harm our subscibers, or degrade service to our subscribers. 6. creates challenges in network management or operations, which rules are not reasable to comply with. (over burdening). 7. are a distraction that take us away from our more important goal, to deploy broadband I'm still writing my presentation/testimony, so dont have it to share with membership yet. Right now the Republicans are on a rampage to help us. Lets show them our support and that we are watching. (Please note I am NOT endorsing a specific party and am not meaning to favor republicans or democrats. I am refering to them only in the context of my observations of where I've read that the majority in the party tend to stand currently on this specific topic/process) I suggeset a plan of action for members. To flood the House Committee members with support letters to PASS HJ RES 37. I've attached a list of the committee members to contact. A higher priority may be to convince democrat members. I suggest sending these support letters Tuesday Morning. Simply state, that you are a WISP, and that you SUPPORT "HJ Res 37", and encourage your representative to PASS the bill.to overturn the FCC's poor NetNEutrality rule makin
Re: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles...
And now is the time to jump back in on the fight because the republicans have gained a lot of headway towards reversing the FCC's actions. And they are likely going to win, with the support of the industry behind them. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: MDK To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:08 AM Subject: [WISPA] net neutrality... Two articles... http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/147121-house-leadership-questions-why-industry-isnt-fighting-in-net-regs?tmpl=component&print=1&page= Excerpt: House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) convened a meeting of top communications companies on Wednesday morning, where he questioned why they are not doing more to help Republicans in the fight against net-neutrality rules. A spokeswoman for McCarthy confirmed the meeting. http://biggovernment.com/nrbrown/2011/03/04/republican-reactive-neutrality/print/ Excerpt: The facts are that Net Neutrality is not about keeping all the bits equal. Net Neutrality is about regulatory creep. It's about controlling the infrastructure so that the message can be controlled. It's about things like Internet Sidewalks [5], and Free Press' founder Robert McChesneys desire to control information, have a government takeover of infrastructure, and control what is available to the people. We know this when he stated, "You will never, ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." I asked once... about a year ago. "What side is WISPA on?" I still can't tell. Are they on the "no regulation is needed, get lost!" bandwagon, or are they on the "We welcome the chance to have input on your future plans" bandwagon? The two roads diverged a while back. Which is WISPA on? ++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++ -- 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/
