On 3/9/2017 4:30 PM, Charles Jones wrote:
My local county government is considering becoming a WISP. I am
interested in finding out if there any city or county governments
operating a wireless internet in the United States.
The Town of Warwick, Massachusetts has a municipal WISP. I've been
wo
omes along. The
licenses mostly expire April 17, 2020, so if you're not using something
that looks like it will become a CBSD, then keep that in mind when
evaluating the purchase.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Fred Goldstein <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 3/6/2017
ing, though.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Fred Goldstein <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 3/6/2017 12:32 PM, Marco Coelho wrote:
I've been off-line for a while. What is the latest set of
decisions from the FCC with the 3.65 band?
A second Report a
On 3/6/2017 12:32 PM, Marco Coelho wrote:
I've been off-line for a while. What is the latest set of decisions
from the FCC with the 3.65 band?
A second Report and Order was issued in May, 2016. Since then, the
action has moved to WinnForum, which is producing the standards for how
to actua
On 3/2/2017 1:43 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
We have a couple of the ignite switches. They work fine. Web interface
very clunky but works.
Thanks. That gives me some confidence.
On Mar 2, 2017 1:41 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:
On 3/2/2
ch. So it isn't
optimized for clean Layer 2 operation with VLANs, QoS, etc. That's not
MT's strength -- router folks don't appreciate Carrier Ethernet, which
is a lot newer than eye pee.
On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> w
*Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:24 AM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch...
On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
ch. So it isn't
optimized for clean Layer 2 operation with VLANs, QoS, etc. That's not
MT's strength -- router folks don't appreciate Carrier Ethernet, which
is a lot newer than eye pee.
On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> w
*Sent:* Thursday, March 2, 2017 9:24 AM
*To:* WISPA General List
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Active Ethernet switches
There is a 10 SFP mikrotik switch...
On Mar 2, 2017 11:22 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 3/2/2017 10:54 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
w.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>
*From:*wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
*On Behalf Of *Fred Goldstein
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 1, 2017 9:37 PM
*To:* wireless@wispa.org
*Subject:* R
loyments. Of course it's kinda new so I don't know if
anyone has it deployed yet. And I have no need for higher-layer features
in a switch; I'd rather let a real router do that.
On Mar 1, 2017 7:07 PM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
Fo
For a small outdoor or semi-outdoor (not a/c) deployment of a couple of
dozen ports or so, what's a good cheap Active Ethernet switch? This
would be to supplement wireless and focus on business customers, so
Active makes more sense. Thanks.
--
Fred R. Goldstein k1iofred "at" interis
On 2/2/2017 3:43 PM, redes wrote:
We charge 8€/Mo/IP here in north of Spain...
El Robert Dillon , 2 feb. 2017 4:42 p. m. escribió:
We also charge $5/IP/Mo for residential customers and one free IP
for business customers with $5/IP/Mo for additional IPs. For
subnet routed customer
On 1/25/2017 11:58 AM, Marco Coelho wrote:
Some of my friends at Verizon are talking a major shift in their Fiber
Deployment.
They have decided Fiber to the Home is non practical. They have
adopted a fiber to the pedestal scheme with the last part of the
connectivity being wireless to the home
On 12/27/2016 4:41 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 12/27/16 13:35, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Since you have the license, you are entitled to put up more devices,
just not as Incumbent. So what you might want to do is pull the FCC's
ULS records in that area to see what registered devices the exi
On 12/27/2016 4:13 PM, Sam Morris wrote:
On 12/27/2016 2:34 PM, Johnathan Penberthy wrote:
I believe it is really difficult to get a 3.65 Ghz license now. Though 3.65 Ghz
is basically treated as 5 Ghz, it can share the same space as another provider,
though every link is registered with the FC
On 12/27/2016 3:25 PM, Sam Morris wrote:
I have a question to which I suspect I know the answer but wanted to
defer to you smart guys.
Let's say I'm opening up a new WISP and want to go into an area where
there is an existing WISP already there. And let's say I want to use
3.65 GHz (non-LTE if t
.A.
Mobile: +1.972.922.1443
Email: rick.harn...@baicells.com
Follow us on Facebook for the latest news
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 12:11 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject:
On 11/18/2016 11:09 AM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
We are considering the purchase of a 3.65 license from an existing
license holder who is not using it. We would be using it for a handful
of backhauls to get off of crowded 5GHz space. However, I'm not sure
if this is a smart move (buying a 3.65 li
you
basically don't need a buffer bigger than 10 packets or so. But with QoS
classmarking, you may need multiple buffers.
On Nov 7, 2016 9:53 AM, "Fred Goldstein" <mailto:f...@interisle.net>> wrote:
On 11/7/2016 10:40 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
Negative, l
On 11/7/2016 10:40 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
Negative, layer2 flow control is an axe when you need a scalpel. Turn
it off everywhere!
Layer3 has automatic mechanisms to help handle bandwidth saturation,
and packet loss is part of that process. Furthermore, proper ToS/DSCP
queueing is equally
The sooner you realize that IPv6 was a practical joke, the better off
you'll be.
On 11/1/2016 4:51 PM, Art Stephens wrote:
OK.. so we can not use static addressing then...
So I programmed a Mikrotik to do DHCP-PD and connected it to our
server network.
[admin@MikroTik] /ipv6 dhcp-server> pr
On 10/21/2016 10:09 PM, Civano Coffee House wrote:
signature
And this is exactly why they continue to get away with this kind of
fraud, the government is selective on who they will let report it. If
you’re a person called and try to file a report they throw another
obstacle in the way.
Th
n to the CPE
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ian Fraser mailto:ian_fra...@gozoom.ca>> wrote:
Not sure how static would be safer than DHCP for CPE mgmt?
Ian
Original message ----
From: Fred Goldstein mailto:f...@interisle.net>>
On 10/21/2016 5:55 PM, Ian Fraser wrote:
PPPOE for Res traffic. VLAN's for Biz. Public IP's are statically
assigned. DHCP for CPE's MgMt IP assignment. PPPOE session and CPE's
connection to the AP authenticated by Radius. Radius Accounting is
used for traffic billing and session info.
On 10/6/2016 6:26 PM, Civano Coffee House wrote:
Even without TDMA on a Mimosa A5-14, and Cambium Force180 and Force
200 CPE’s we have 23 customers with 100Mbit plans and have not maxed
it out, Customers don’t use the full bandwidth, but we were happy to
sell it to them. They do a few speed
On 9/29/2016 4:21 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
And you still haven't offered Mimosas, Jaime... I feel like you're
missing an opportunity here.
You must have missed, or been late for, the WISPAPALOOZA 2014 product
announcement.
On 9/29/16 4:20 PM, Jaime Fink wrote:
Mimosa's open event where we'l
On 9/12/2016 4:11 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
Looking to get some probes developed,
Cambim 450
Epmp
AF24
AF5x
Mimosa
We have AF24 and Mimosa probes (we designed our own). I suspect AF5x
uses the same probe. We have Motorola PTP 400 and 600 probes but they're
probably too old for the Cambium 65
On 9/12/2016 2:38 PM, Nick Bright wrote:
On 9/8/2016 10:16 AM, Dan Petermann wrote:
http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/product_details.aspx?id=49277
Any idea how much these usually cost?
I looked to find it for sale. I found a shorter version of that (the
Ballast Pole -- a monopole wi
On 9/7/2016 7:21 PM, Scott Carullo wrote:
Whats the best option?
One economical approach might be to get a 75' or 80' wood utility pole.
An 80' pole can be set 15' deep (a bit deeper in soft soil, I'd guess)
and thus provide 65' of space (maybe 60' if set deep). If it can hold a
pole pig tra
ith its 700 MHz coverage.
AT&T holds a lot of the 2300 MHz WCS licenses. I think one of the
Nextwaves held some and was leasing them to WISPs, but AT&T bought them.
Verizon of course had bought a previous Nextwave.
----
We are involved in this band, at WinnForum. That's where the standards
are being written. The FCC announced the rules last year and did a minor
update of them earlier this year. Now we're working with WinnForum to
fix an oversight that makes the band pretty much unusable by rural
WISPs. ("What,
On 6/19/2016 10:09 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> I believe that Patrick has said as much (not SDR) on the ISP Radio interview
> with him back in April. Would certainly go a ways to explaining how they
> managed to offer it for basically 1/3rd the price of competing gear.
I only know what's publi
.org] On Behalf Of
> Matt Hoppes [mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 2:19 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Baicells - who's deployed it?
>
> I think Adair said he has?
>
> Who says the baicells isn't SDR? I don
On 12/31/2014 8:45 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
So then what do you guys think should be the desired functionality,
standards, etc. we'd want out of MEF\CE in a WISP "router"?
Interesting point Dan made about the price of certification. Not that
it's outrageous as these things go, but it's a co
the dirt-cheap Linux router market that WISPs like.
I do hope we can get some RINA stuff into circulation though; fully
baked (and this hasn't all been coded yet), it is a functional superset
of both CE, MPLS, IP, and IPsec, among other things, with a much smaller
footprint.
On De
On 12/30/2014 5:05 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
How many WISPs have heard of MEF or CE or even VPLS?
So... have you asked for it yet? :-p
supp...@mikrotik.com
I may have once asked somebody from MT about it, maybe at a show, and
they gave the predicted answer, that they're a *router* compan
On 12/1/2014 1:56 PM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote:
We started using Alpha UPS' and we have been happy with them.
You have to use your own batteries, but it's nice that you're not
locked down to proprietary batteries like you are with the likes of
APC and TrippLite.
TrippLite also has SNMP cards
uto adjust to EIRP
limit", it caps the power on the AP side to +36 (the PtMP limit) on
5150-5250, but doesn't enforce the +36 cap on 5725+.
I'm not 100% certain that the test lab was following the rules, though,
as there is no band edge to protect at 5725.
*From: *"Fred G
On 11/30/2014 11:55 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I have a link at 6.6 miles with a pair of Rocket M5. It's at 5765 and
> has worked beautifully for a couple of years now. It is -55 on each
> side with 2' dishes.
>
> I'm looking at doing another link that's almost identical (one similar
> tower) a
On 11/25/2014 2:18 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Who are you writing checks to and why aren't you doing something better?
I haven't written a check in years.
One of my Interisle partners is a financial-IT expert, and knows the
banking system inside and out. He designed the network for Wall Stree
a few years
before the sum of the parts was worth three times as much as the
previous whole. Shareholders, including Rockefeller, cried all the way
to the bank.) Now they're in the final stages of abandoning the
undermaintained plant, using excuses like "IP transition". It most
g about now,
it's the data itself, which Title II was never meant to regulate, so it
wouldn't stand up in court.
--
On 11/21/2014 6:19 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote:
So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some
point-counterpoin
On 11/21/2014 5:47 PM, Drew Lentz wrote:
So here's what sparked the question. I was trying to get some
point-counterpoint going on with a friend of mine and found some
pretty good arguments on each. This article made me think about it all
a little differently:
http://www.netcompetition.org/co
ve a bit more common sense and see
>>> that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run.
>>>
>>> Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally
>>> stick, well that’s up in the air.
>>>
>>> Sincerely
On 11/19/2014 4:22 PM, Sean Heskett wrote:
> also title II regulations are why an OC3 at 150Mbps costs 100 times as
> much as 150Mbps metro ethernet. Ethernet is unregulated, OC3 is part
> of the whole terrified crap left over from MaBell etc. So even though
> both services are delivered over
On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote:
> I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous.
>
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9
>
> I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support
> and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying
On 11/13/2014 1:26 PM, Jason Bailey wrote:
Higher gain,lower power works best,in almost any situation.
But not necessarily in-home. Higher gain only comes from a more
directive antenna. An "omni" gain antenna has a pancake pattern. If
it's a one-story building, fine. But I ran into the o
On 11/12/2014 7:05 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Is there any more information on what exactly the FCC is proposing to
> propose? I know there was Title II thrown around
There is no firm proposal. Last week Tom let out a "trial baloon"
suggesting that he'd adopt something based on the Mozilla pr
On 10/23/2014 6:36 PM, daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca wrote:
> Sure -
>
> http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/2147485870/product_details.aspx?id=27271
>
> I will sell it to you with a radio attached too! ;-)
>
That's for the licensed 24.25-26.5 GHz band. Was the original poster
referring to the
On 10/23/2014 6:36 PM, daniel.mul...@metrocom.ca wrote:
> Sure -
>
> http://www.commscope.com/catalog/wireless/2147485870/product_details.aspx?id=27271
>
> I will sell it to you with a radio attached too! ;-)
>
That's for the licensed 24.25-26.5 GHz band. Was the original poster
referring to the
On 10/23/2014 3:00 PM, Bryce Duchcherer wrote:
Does anybody know of a 24GHz radio that is smaller than 1'?
It doesn't have to go very far, but we are wanting 24GHz.
It may be a problem because the FCC rules for that band are pretty
strict. From 15.249:
(3) Antenna gain must be at least
Do many people here use InterMapper? We use it as our NMS, monitoring a
variety of switches and radios. Each monitored devices requires a
probe, or else IM falls back to use standard SNMP variables or even just
ping. The probes can be constructed fairly easily out of a MIB.
Ubiquiti doesn't
On 9/8/2014 5:28 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/att-and-verizon-say-10mbps-is-too-fast-for-broadband-4mbps-is-enough/
Ironically, ISTM that would probably be good for WISPs. If the FCC
decides that 10 Mbps is the baseline and areas that don't get it become
e
While we had submitted Comments already on the U-NII/ISM OOBE issue,
I've also been looking at the first U-NII-1 outdoor type approvals
coming down the line. These provide concrete evidence that the OOBE
limits are severely restricting useful power. So I collected the actual
numbers from the
On 8/5/2014 11:34 AM, Rick Harnish wrote:
Jamie,
First off, congratulations. I know it has been a long time coming.
I see the product was certified under 15.407 rules. Could you post a
spec sheet as if it were approved under the 15.247 rules, so everyone
can see the impact the rule change
On 8/5/2014 11:21 AM, Adair Winter wrote:
I didn't want to be negative nelly this morning. But that was my
thought also..
I'm moving as much as possible to licensed links because I can't
hardly keep my 5Ghz PtP's running out of my data center.
The 5 GHz band is getting quite crowded, but at
On 7/25/2014 12:29 PM, Sam wrote:
> Two questions for you guys...
>
> Have any of you ever heard of a requirement to obtain an "Experimental
> License" (via a Form 442) to start up or operate a WISP? I'm trying to
> find something online that states what sort of radio, frequency,
> activity, or any
27;n'match antennas is saved. So I'm working
on a Comment in favor of both petitions.
> -----Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 1:03 PM
> To: wireless@wispa.org
On 7/3/2014 9:33 AM, Ben Moore wrote:
> $135 MSRP for rocket-lite.
That's excellent. One of the contractors working with us recently
replaced a pair of old Motorola PTPs with NanoStation Ms. It's just a
camera, so it doesn't need much speed, so when I found its wireless side
converging at 270
On 6/30/2014 10:24 AM, Jack Lehmann wrote:
Outside of the distance sensitivities, is there a clear reason why one
would or would not want to use this band?
If it's readily available in my area, while the FCC bands are quite
congested, would there be anything in particular to compel me to kee
On 6/13/2014 2:42 AM, Blair Davis wrote:
A question
Part 15 vs ISM
I thought there was NO protection within the ISM bands. No licensed
operations there.
Now, someone can get a license in the middle of an ISM and then force
the others out?
Don't sound kosher... But I want to know whe
On 4/16/2014 2:32 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> OK... but why is there no USF on an INTRAstate circuit but there is on
> an INTERstate?
Jurisdiction. The Federal USF is, by law, only applicable to interstate
services.
USF was created in 1996. Before then, rural telcos got all of their
subsidies fr
excess of 23 dBi”
>
> What is the assumed transmitter power? 30dBm?
Yes (I didn't copy that sentence of the rule but that's what it says).
> On Apr 15, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2014 5:13 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>> Excellent Summr
ent" of a vertically-integrated information service is no longer
subject to USF.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Fred Goldstein"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesda
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
On 4/15/2014 5:12 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
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
On 4/2/2014 5:24 PM, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 6:55 AM, Fred Goldstein <> wrote:
>
>> But in addition to that, I STRONGLY recommend a separate VLAN for the
>> voice-grade channels. With priority, or reserved bandwidth. TCP/IP in
>> nor
On 4/2/2014 9:03 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote:
> OK, I will. Right now its on my remote techs bench with a Cat5e cable and a
> switch between the 2 devices. Where this will be going is a farmers elevator
> site 150 feet between the 2 buildings using UBNT NSM5 radios, excellent
> quality. Right now th
On 3/31/2014 10:03 AM, wi...@mncomm.com wrote:
I have a customer that we installed an IP phone system for. They moved
their office to a new building where the telco couldn't or wouldn't
bring service to. So I have the PBX at their old location where the
COs come in and we go over a wireless lin
th Claremont numbers;
Sprint and MCC have West Concord numbers.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Fred Goldstein <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:
On 3/27/2014 3:11 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
This is the adjacent rate center to one of our main service
areas, it is a local
On 3/27/2014 3:11 PM, Chris Fabien wrote:
This is the adjacent rate center to one of our main service areas, it
is a local call. Different telco though.
As a general rule, any rate center's numbers can be made portable if
they aren't already so. It can worst case take six moths to implement
omers, pays USF, and essentially gives
you a commission, but I'm really not sure about that -- then you still
have to file Form 499-A (annual) and give the numbers. If you're above
the limit, then you file Form 499-Q (quarterly) and give the numbers and
remit the money.
On Wed, Mar 26, 20
On 3/26/2014 12:53 PM, Randy Cosby wrote:
Doesn't sound right to me, unless they are going to do all the billing
and tax filing in your behalf.
If they charge you USF on your wholesale rate, who pays on the
difference between your wholesale rate and the customer's marked up rate?
USF rules a
On 3/14/2014 4:44 PM, heith petersen wrote:
Yeah, its 2.4 omni. Yeah, I wouldn't have done it that way, I thought
he used more of the real estate that we had available on the platform.
But yeah, that was the cause, moved it away 10 foot and increased
through put.
Understandable problem. A
ts from the SM's
hard wired to the AP
---
Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox> for iPhone
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fred Goldstein
mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:
Very interesting, Chris, thanks If the latency is going up to
Very interesting, Chris, thanks If the latency is going up to 200-400
ms. and there are no other buffered network elements in the path, then
it would seem to me that the ePMP has a very serious case of
bufferbloat. This is sometimes done because it makes the radio seem to
perform better on ar
On 2/27/2014 7:59 PM, Tommie Dodd wrote:
Smoking those funny cigarettes!
Their goal would cost trillions and still not be free. It would need
maintenance.
I am not shaking in my shoes just yet.
Isaac's a good guy, and he's not trying to put you all out of business.
His model is essentiall
On 2/24/2014 6:03 PM, Marlon Schafer (509.982.2181) wrote:
This is the only cantenna that I've ever heard of
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-make-a-wifi-antenna-out-of-a-pringles-can-nb/
marlon
Well, among us real old timers, who remember Heathkits, they were
probably the first to have
On 2/23/2014 9:20 PM, Robert wrote:
> I believe they are allowed to xmit at up to 6 watts, similar to clear
> wire I loved thinking about the power levels coming out of clear
> wire antennas sitting on peoples desks next to where they work for 8
> hours.
My recollection is that the old analo
On 2/21/2014 1:53 PM, Heith Petersen wrote:
I have a long standing customer that recently bought a PC from best
buy. He kept telling me he would lose signal from his Air Router. So
he came to my office and I set him up with a Pico station. Worked good
at first then failure. So I talked with him
r the radios), with the TX power set to +4 dBm. The PTPs were all
upgraded to DFS. Longer paths tend to converge at lower speeds (QPSK).
But path by path conditions vary.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 12, 2014, at 17:56, Fred Goldstein <mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>> wrote:
On 2/12/2014
On 2/12/2014 5:23 PM, Chuck Hogg wrote:
Yea, but the power levels of some are not likely usable in an outdoor
WISP environment.
A good explanation is at Wikipedia strange enough...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-NII
People running equipment in frequencies at a power level higher than
intended
On 2/11/2014 6:18 PM, Art Stephens wrote:
5265-5320
5500-5580
5660-5700
5735-5840
Are these not USA channels?
If am wrong let me know and I will change them.
Yes, if your radio is type-approved for 15.407 with DFS. Otherwise only
the latter block, which can be type-approved under 15.247 an
On 2/10/2014 10:21 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
So what about the cell companies that use 5GHz for a quick back haul
while waiting for their license to come in?
Not the ones commenting in favor of the proposal. I suppose the old
Motorola might have understood that, but Cambium now owns the unlice
d. I don't know what companies are in the
Alliance.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On February 10, 2014 6:15:22 AM Fred Goldstein
wrote:
Blair Davis wrote,
> I just went and read a bunch of the comments on the proceeding...
>
> I didn't read the
Blair Davis wrote,
I just went and read a bunch of the comments on the proceeding...
>
> I didn't read them all, but I didn't find one in favor of the lower
antenna gain...
>
> Has anyone else?
Motorola Solutions, makers of $6000 police walkie-talkies, explicitly
supports the lower gain l
On 2/9/2014 9:42 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
The use of compliance test is one of the reasons the FCC is clamping
down on 5 ghz...
UBNT says that they got DFS2 working in 5.5.2, in 2012, so at least some
radios, including the NSM5, are compliant. Aren't these officially
approved yet for th
On 2/3/2014 6:30 PM, l...@mwtcorp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:36:02 -0500
> Fred Goldstein wrote:
>> We've been seeing a strange problem on a network we operate that has
>> a lot of (mostly old) Motorola PTP400 radios on it. These use the
>> Motoro
We've been seeing a strange problem on a network we operate that has a
lot of (mostly old) Motorola PTP400 radios on it. These use the
Motorola PIDU POE injector. They're connected to HP Procurve and Cisco
3550 switches.
The problem is that some radios literally kill the switch ports.
Someti
On 1/13/2014 11:52 AM, CBB - Jay Fuller wrote:
my problem with imap that i've seen is all the packrats in the world
never ever want to delete their email.
so then they have gigabytes of mail on the server dating back to 2004
I have gigabytes of mail on my own computers dating back farther
On 1/13/2014 11:28 AM, D. Ryan Spott wrote:
> For those of you that own towers or just know... What do HAM operators
> usually get charged for colocation?
>
No personal experience doing this, but as an old ham, I would be
surprised if many hams paid anything! One of the core skills of hamdom
is
On 1/8/2014 12:08 PM, Sean Heskett wrote:
> the part 15 PTP 24Ghz band is only from 24000-24200Mhz (200Mhz of
> spectrum) i would assume that the doppler radar for cars is in another
> slice of the 24Ghz spectrum. as far as i know 24000-24200Mhz is for
> part 15 PTP only.
>
> shouldn't be an is
t now but it is likely to become more common. Does anyone know how
often it uses 24 GHz? This might eventually impact urban paths or those
that go over highways.
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 00:11:47 -0500
From: Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com>>
Subject: Re: [W
On 1/7/2014 8:29 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
Its doable with the PTP650's, add 3' dishes for a nice rx gain
I seem to recall a story several years ago, before Orthogon was bought
by Moto, about a link somewhere in Central America (Nicaragua or
Panama?) that used a pair of 5.8 GHz Orthogon rad
On 1/4/2014 2:20 PM, Adam Greene wrote:
Hi,
We have a small Alvarion VL 5.8GHz cell with two links of less than a
mile. Generally they are beautiful. However, since Dec 23, we are
getting lots of packet loss and high latency on almost all frequencies.
Every day we have to go through all the
On 10/29/2013 10:20 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
Then I have to add a switch and ups on each floor... I was thinking of
home running all to the top floor... no?
How big is each floor? This may be a case where exact mapping of the
route matters.
Cat5e at 100 Mbps is rated for 100 meters max
On 10/28/2013 4:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
So they just chose poor VoIP upstreams?
Poor quality ones, yes. Under current rules, being VoIP doesn't waive
switched access rates. Until the FCC ruled in late 2011 that VoIP
termination was subject to interstate access (even on intrastate calls,
On 10/28/2013 3:55 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
So not only are the rural telcos getting tens of thousands of dollars
per line, but they can't properly complete a call?
The problem is/was that they are perfectly capable of completing calls
that reach them, but instead of sending calls to them dir
1 - 100 of 440 matches
Mail list logo
