On 6/21/18 12:57, Steve Barnes wrote:
> Now they are claiming that 10MHz channel width in the 900MHz ISM band is
> Illegal. That the channel width is to be no larger than 8MHz. I have
> read all kinds of ISM docs from the FCC and I see no mention of max
> channel widths. They made mention of t
On 12/16/17 9:39 AM, Vance Shipley wrote:
>
> Sure they did. What would you do if a "customer" (from your perspective)
> said to you that they were special and you shouldn't charge them anything?
>
> A) you would ignore them, or B) you would give them a price. Either way
> it's your choice, at
On 12/15/17 09:40, Josh Luthman wrote:
> Do you not have a DMCA contact? I get these things daily and I have a
> pretty small customer count with a geographic that I would suspect is
> minimally using Bittorrent.
>
Not daily, no. Maybe once or twice a month for me.
~Seth
On 12/13/17 9:04 AM, Rory Conaway wrote:
> I want to be able to throttle torrent users. Beyond that, I don't think it
> will affect us much in areas of high-competition.
I don't really see torrents as a major thing anymore, not like what it
used to be anyway.
__
On 12/10/17 2:44 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> What are the current thoughts on the effects of net neutrality being
> over turned on our bandwidth providers? I understand how the cable and
> DSL companies may react but as a small WISP, I've been thinking this
> will have little impact on us and ou
On 12/6/17 15:37, Jan Van Kort wrote:
> I use that now, where does CBRS get tied to 3.6 equipment? I read the
> fcc blurb on cbrs and they didn't cover 3.6, only mentioned cb radios
> and 40 channels. Didn't know anybody still used that stuff, grew out of
> that 40 years ago.
That's Citizens
On 12/6/17 6:25 AM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Do you really think this is going to do anything though? It's very easy
> to post something like this on Facebook, but I feel like it really
> doesn't have any actual affect.
No, posting to Facebook does not help. Use Twitter to call out the
relevant pa
On 6/8/17 16:35, Mitch wrote:
> I here protect existing...What about new PtP priority over PtMP??
New 6GHz licensed links must be continued to be allowed in my opinion,
even if it requires shutdown for someone's multipoint.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing
On 6/7/17 11:44, David Jones wrote:
> If its to be part 15 how will the 6ghz be protected? don't we now have
> problems in the DFS from people who don't know or don't care?
I still want to able to coordinate new part 101 6GHz links. That band
should not be removed from the box of tools WISPs ha
On 6/7/17 11:23, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> What are you proposing replace unlicensed spectrum with?
>
> CBRS? I don’t think you are going to like the results. Straight up
> licensed auctions? Do you really have the money to compete with the big 4
> in that?
>
> I’m not sure what WISPA is su
On 6/5/17 09:13, Chuck Hogg wrote:
> I think so long as we protect existing uses of 6GHz, I'd be open to more
> unlicensed spectrum.
Future use of 6GHz as it's currently used should also be protected.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
On 6/5/17 09:10, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> Another "lightly licensed" MAY work. But just another extension of
> part-15 would be a cluster f*ck.
Lightly licensed NN was a joke and should not be repeated.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wis
On 6/5/17 8:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> Read it again. PTP links are protected in 6Ghz, and would continue to be
> protected. Not yet determined (and this is a very long process) is how new
> PTP links would be established.
>
> WISPA’s long standing and continuing policy is to advocate
On 6/5/17 4:04 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
> It’s curious that you would give up access to potentially >1000Mhz of
> clean mid-band spectrum because you don’t want your competitors using
> it. Given the current limited amount of spectrum available for PTMP
> use how do you propose to serve th
On 6/2/17 2:12 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> I’m interested in opinions on how important 6Ghz PTP links are to the
> membership and for those who use them if there would be significant
> opposition to using the spectrum for Point to Multipoint.
I think that if the history of behavior with unlicen
On 6/4/17 2:00 PM, Keefe John wrote:
> Count me in. The channel sizes available in 6 GHz don't allow enough
> bandwidth for current applications. I hardly see 6 GHz PCNs anymore.
60MHz channels are still serviceable.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
On 3/21/17 09:44, Marco Coelho wrote:
> I understand that, but sm on the rear of a panel can interfere with it
> if there is freq overlap.
Set the SM Receive Target Level to whatever is appropriate.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
ht
On 3/21/17 09:31, Marco Coelho wrote:
> Those using the 450m, are you having to put anything behind the to
> increase the F/B ratio instead of physical separation?
>
The sectors hearing each other isn't really an issue with GPS sync since
they will all TX at the same time.
~Seth
___
On 2/2/17 7:33 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
> Let me ask this a different way. If I ran out of IP space today, and had
> to go buy a /24 for someone how much would that cost on the open market?
Probably $4k for a /24.
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless
On 2/2/17 7:13 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
> So a /26 has 64 total IPs, but only 62 are useable. So you are saying
> you would charge $5 - $10 per IP times 62 IPs? The cost of their statics
> would then cost more than the actual service?
Consider the value of how many other individual customers you c
On 1/29/17 11:42 AM, Christian Palecek wrote:
> Could be a bad odu, trasmit power failing is somewhat common, we've had
> two ptp 820S fail in the past two years, different reasons. Submit a
> ticket. They'll have you power cycle, replace all the cabling, try
> direct dc wire, replace the power a
On 1/29/17 9:46 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> Turned off adaptive power, no avail
>
> Using MRMC script of 260 mbps
>
> Nothing getting flagged in license page
If you were out of license the background goes yellow and it alerts you
every time you click on something. It's extremely obvious.
___
On 1/29/17 2:38 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> This is what I have
>
>
Platform -> Manager -> Interface Manager
Check for admin up.
Did you check the stickers to make sure you didn't get shipped two of
the same unit instead of a high/low pair? I don't know if the UI would
let you configure the fr
On 1/24/17 09:24, Marco Coelho wrote:
> Are there any cat5/6/7 crimpers out there that also crimp the drain wire
> for the shielded cat 5 lines? It would save us a lot of time soldering
> the drain wires.
>
I use a DIN crimper.
~Seth
___
Wireless mail
On 1/11/17 15:56, Tim wrote:
> Free internet
> Warranty on all equipment
>
> Would not do a per sub. The trust factor is to high risk.
>
>
How do you guys handle people that have been poisoned by what cell
companies pay? Like if someone says they need at least $2,500/mo from
you because that's
On 12/27/16 18:36, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I also have a feeling that there's a non-zero number of people that
> won't give a shit and will run whatever they want whenever they want.
You're right, of course, but I was trying to be optimistic. I do wish
the FCC would go out and nuke those people.
On 12/27/16 16:50, Stuart Pierce wrote:
> I set forth the point at a get together with the FCC in Gettysburg a few
> years back that I thought it was a waste of time to register the CPE's.
> The base station already spews forth the frequency in a certain direction
> anyway.
>
> That's when I realiz
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 existing
> WISPs have in the area you're looking to
On 11/18/16 08:09, 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 lic
On 10/21/16 09:55, Marco Coelho wrote:
>
> Going through cogent, in the last two weeks I've had networks drop at
> cogent including paypal today. I've heard the DDOS noise, but have
> never seen paypal taken down. Any input?
>
PayPal (paypal.com) isn't down but Dyn's DNS is.
eBay (ebay.com) on
On 9/27/16 14:27, Tim Way wrote:
> That's ok I interactively harness dynamic clouds
In order to globally enable mission-critical web services.
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
On 9/8/16 6:41 PM, Shawn C. Peppers wrote:
> Yes. The fm noise is induced into the power cable and hits the netonix
> power circuit and goes to sh*t.
>
> This is pointed out in detail on the netonix forum.
>
Has anyone tried putting a DC-DC converter in front of it? Although that
would kinda ne
On 9/8/16 6:34 PM, Jon Langeler wrote:
> Was the Netonix in a metal enclosure?
Wasn't the problem that it's picking up the FM noise from the DC input
i.e. the copper cable running up the tower?
~Seth
___
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http:/
On 9/8/16 6:02 PM, Chadwick Wachs wrote:
> With two new FM stations moving onto the tower I am on, I need to solve
> the FM noise problem once and for all. I've been using Ferrites on each
> end of the Ethernet cable and its been pretty successful but I need to
> add a couple more antennas so I am
On 8/25/16 2:12 AM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> It worries mee that there are no other comments within this list… lack
> of vision?
Waiting to see what happens with equipment. IMO the current LTE stuff
targeted at WISPs in 3.65 hasn't been too exciting yet. NLOS happens to
be irrelevant to me and I
On 8/22/16 08:27, Sean Heskett wrote:
> FYI Structural steel is not a proper electrical ground
>
I wouldn't say that. Here's some pictures:
http://ecmweb.com/code-basics/grounding-and-bonding-part-3-3
And 2014 changes:
http://www.necconnect.org/resources/2014nec_changes_article250/
~Seth
On 7/6/16 08:36, Justin Wilson wrote:
> +1 to both Adam and Mike’s responses.
>
> Don’t hand out someone else’s DNS. Spin up your own DNS, use root hints,
> and life is happy.
I said this before here or somewhere else, but knowing how to do a DNS
resolver is one of the most basic things you shou
37 matches
Mail list logo
