Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

I'm interested in all of these units. Let me know how many of each and how much you want. I'd be willing to take the whole thing. I have 400 subs left to switch to newer CPE that will do 10mhz channels, so I'll take all I can get. Thanks, Matt Larsen mlar...@vistabeam.com On 9/24/2010

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

Eh? What ya mean??? -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Philip Dorr Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:14 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout! It works perfectly fine

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

Been there. But mine finally died and the hard reset is now no more. Sucks. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Greg Ihnen Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:13 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

It works perfectly fine if you power through the secondary port. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:05 PM, RickG wrote: > I was skeptical of the poe passthrough sicne I first saw it and this is why. > On repeaters, it would be so tempting to just run one wire but I've stuck > with two. It will be interest

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

I have a NS5M (back haul) which is passing through power and data to a BulletM2 as AP and I recently had some strangeness - I changed settings in the NS5M and power to the BulletM2 would start cycling. The BulletM2 is my access to the NS5M so I couldn't get in that way. I also couldn't browse in

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

At 9/24/2010 05:03 PM, Brian Webster wrote: >Fred, > Have you actually studied some locations that might > be in this situation and computed the HAAT using the tool on the > FCC web site or some other HAAT calculation tool? If you look at a > calculation for a site such as my of

Re: [WISPA] Morning report Copper Theft

Great! Now every riding lawn mower driving, scrap metal thief pulling a shopping cart full of cans will look at a tower like hitting the lottery. Wonderful. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Blake Bowers Sent: Thursday,

Re: [WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

I was skeptical of the poe passthrough sicne I first saw it and this is why. On repeaters, it would be so tempting to just run one wire but I've stuck with two. It will be interesting to see if it gets fixed. Thanks for sharing! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Robert West wrote: > Today I finall

Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

I lucked out then, Every single customer I have looked at has a - HAAT. I have not been able to find a site in my area that has a positive HAAT. Looks like I need to start looking for higher areas and start doing some 700mhz models, and how many people need to kick UBNT to get them to release gear?

Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

At 9/24/2010 08:45 PM, FrankC wrote: So, if we have a negative HAAT, is it correct that we are within the rules. Say we have a location with -100 calculated HAAT and it can not be above +75. Frank Yes, if you are in a site with negative HAAT, then you're fine to go on WS, sasuming the database

[WISPA] UBNT Nano5M Secondary RJ45 Port PoE Burnout!

Today I finally figured out an Issue I've been having with a NanoStation5M. I have a customer who wanted service, was in trees but had a hot signal out at the road. Dug a 4 foot hole, put in 2 10 foot sections of rigid conduit and 5 bags of concrete. Ran an underground line of Cat5e, double shi

Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

So, if we have a negative HAAT, is it correct that we are within the rules. Say we have a location with -100 calculated HAAT and it can not be above +75. Frank On 9/24/2010 2:11 PM, Brian Webster wrote: This rule as it is written states that the ground elevation not more than 75 meters HAAT

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

I did a HAAT for my sites where I would use this. The results Antenna elevation above sea level : 1096.27m Average ground elevation above sea level: 1216.56m HAAT: -120.28998046875m(5m antenna) Antenna elevation above sea leve

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

OK, I get it now, its not just the AP, but the SU also. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:57 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna H

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

looks awfully similar to what is on Spectrum Bridge's web site... :) 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 9/24/2010 6:48 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: >http://whitespaces

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

It may note be a secret but I wish I heard it before spending the money. (I bought them when they first came out). At least, I only purchased for a single tower trial so my loss was limited. Although, I'm sure I'll find a home for them. It just makes it difficult to upgrade if you have to wait unti

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

What Antenna are u using with the Rocket M2 ? UBNT Antenna's have built in Electrical DownTilts. Do you calcs to make sure that you appropriate Mechanical Tilt. ( In most cases there is no Mechanical DownTilt or Uptilt needed). Another thing to watch out for with Rocket M2's is to make sure

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs usingStarOS

It is the 5.2.1 FW. But I think at this point we will get the Bullet 2s a try. On 09/24/2010 04:50 PM, Stuart Pierce wrote: > What firmware version is on the Rocket2M ? Defintely give the 5.2.1 a shot. > > -- Original Message -- > From: Justin Mann > Repl

Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

Bigger radio/antenna combinations generally. Regards Michael Baird What are you replacing them with? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Michael Baird > wrote: We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd lik

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs usingStarOS

What firmware version is on the Rocket2M ? Defintely give the 5.2.1 a shot. -- Original Message -- From: Justin Mann Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:50:20 -0700 >I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS and UBNT Bullet 2s... noth

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

Sorry, I do see that now. Reading too quick on a Friday night =\ Yes, Bullet2HP units work well. I've used a few Bullet2 units for the small repeaters but the radio int he HP is much better. -RickG On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Justin Mann wrote: > I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS an

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

The M series do not work as well as the legacy series to B/G clients, this isn't a secret. If you want to support legacy gear, you should use the legacy series for your AP's (they work fine as clients), they work much better in mixed b/g mode then the M series. M series AP's do scale worse run

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

But how fast can 200 or 300MHz go? On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Brian Webster wrote: > But what if you are able to use spectrum around 200 or 300 MHz? That > certainly goes through trees. > > > > > > Brian > > > > *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] *On >

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

I mentioned below they are a mix of StarOS and UBNT Bullet 2s... nothing else involved. A bullet 2 as an AP worked better for you, then? We might have to consider that. On 09/24/2010 03:47 PM, RickG wrote: > Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out > with Bullet2's

[WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/ Kind of cool I think... WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless Lis

Re: [WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

Same results on my first try as well. I swapped the Rockets back out with Bullet2's and they work much better! I haven't had time to play with them since. The 5GHz Rockets are a different story. They work very well so I might just skip the 2.4 units altogether. You didn't mention what CPE you have.

Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

What are you replacing them with? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Michael Baird wrote: > We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and > Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is > interested, please email me. > > Regards > Michael Baird > > > > -

[WISPA] Very poor quality when using Rocket M2 as AP vs using StarOS

Hello, We have been considering replacing our StarOS APs at a particular site with Rocket M2s. This site is very high up, and is composed of 6 2.4GHz APs, 3 vertical, 3 horizontal. They face NW, W and SW, and are all using 10Mhz channels in 802.11g operation mode. The busiest sector has about

Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

I don't have the exact quantities here, which are you interested in the Tranzeo's or the Ubiquities? Regards Michael Baird > Michael > > What do you have and pricing? > > Thanks > > Joe Kelley > > East Texas DSL > 936-634-4375 > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [m

Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

Michael What do you have and pricing? Thanks Joe Kelley East Texas DSL 936-634-4375 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Michael Baird Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Equip

Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

This rule as it is written states that the ground elevation not more than 75 meters HAAT. Remember that is the not actual ground elevation of the site, it is the HAAT calculation. See my other email with a HAAT report pasted within. My office at an elevation of 1420 ft AMSL actually has a negative

Re: [WISPA] Referral Programs

We give a free month of service to the referring customer. We print out the credit for their account and send it with a thank you card that says "Thanks for your referral" on the front and a handwritten note inside. I had these made up from a card vendor. It adds an extra touch and doesn't tak

Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

Using common sense, it would appear that any CPE antenna above the HAAT level would be downtilted to point to the lower tower broadcast antenna which would be under this level. At a maximum, the CPE antenna would be at 0 degrees inclination. This point should help clarify why it would be permissi

Re: [WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

At 9/24/2010 03:03 PM, you wrote: Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? I see no mention of receive-only terminals, though I doubt anybody asked. Bu

Re: [WISPA] Rohn 25G engineering design

*http://tinyurl.com/2bj7tuv* * *Regards, Chuck On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Cameron Kilton wrote: > Does anybody have any engineering plans for Rohn 25G towers at 80' and > 120' with 1 inch ICE conditions? > -- > > Thanks, > Cameron Kilton > > > > -

[WISPA] FW: Transmit Antenna Height

Steve, Here is another question to pose to the FCC. Does the HAAT requirement include receive antennas. In otherwords, can no clients be installed above the 76 meter HAAT level? Respectively, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype:

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

Those were my thoughts as well. If anyone can adapt quickly to this decision on tower heights, it will be innovative WISPs. Rick From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:16 PM To: bwebs...@wirelessmappi

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

At 9/24/2010 02:16 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial towe

Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other

OOps, I did get it backwardsLOL. In that case My advice for Marco would be Reach out to the new WISP, and make sure they know you are there, and how to contact you if needed. Engineering non-interference, is better than reacting to it, for both parties. Knowing your competitor's equi

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

There is one other benefit of this No body else will be able to install higher either. Mounting lower to the ground, its more likely a WISP will be able to install their own tower, and no longer have to pay huge colocation costs on a commercial tower. I predict more houses up on the hill, be

Re: [WISPA] Transmit Antenna Height

Yeah... that will help. In my neck of the woods, its possible the only available channels might be in the lower channels anyway. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Th

Re: [WISPA] Equipment

Feel free to place your ad at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2297 > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Cameron Kilton > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:40 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Equipment > >

Re: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

Feel free to place your ad at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=2297 > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Baird > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:15 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] Equipment - Tranz

[WISPA] Equipment - Tranzeo/Ubiquiti

We've got an assortment of used Tranzeo CPQ's, Tranzeo 5A's, and Ubiquiti PS2/Nano2/Nano2 loco we'd like to sell. If anybody is interested, please email me. Regards Michael Baird WISPA Wants You! Join today! http:

[WISPA] Equipment

Please contact me with interest offlist. I have a: REb BAlvarion SU-E-5.3Ghz 54MB Bridge unit for sale $400 Alvarion AU-5.8-VL Rev B - Make offer -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton Project Manager Midcoast Internet Solutions http://www.midcoast.com c...@midcoast.com (207) 594-8277 x 108 -

[WISPA] Rohn 25G engineering design

Does anybody have any engineering plans for Rohn 25G towers at 80' and 120' with 1 inch ICE conditions? -- Thanks, Cameron Kilton WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -

Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 04:04:38PM -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote: >> Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: > > I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me > that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given a

Re: [WISPA] nanostation and canopy towers within 2 miles of each other

True, but it works the same. Thanks for all the great input. Marco On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Hey Tom, > Great post with great info. have no quams with the info you have presented. > > Just wanted to point it.. that I think you read Marco's email backwards... > > Wh